Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with:
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session:
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 26 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Urban Land (Development)

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the amount of new development taking place on derelict or underused urban land (a) currently and (b) in 1991. [3116]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): In 1985, 38 per cent. of land for new housing came from land previously used for urban development. Since then, we have moved close to the Government's 50 per cent. target. I am now looking at whether that target could be higher.

Mr. Smith: That is very welcome news, but given the natural and understandable propensity of developers to develop on green-field sites and the obvious benefit to the green belt and the countryside of developing underused urban land, will my right hon. Friend continue to give this very useful programme a very high priority?

Mr. Gummer: Yes, certainly. I have committed myself to defending the green belt and believe that the present footprint is what ought to be developed first.

Mr. Betts: Is not the use to which underused and derelict land is put important and should it not be in line with Government guidance? Perhaps the Secretary of State is aware of the correspondence that I have had with the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency about a planning application for a 20-screen cinema complex in Broughton lane in my constituency. The application was bungled by the development corporation and there was a lack of decision by Ministers. As a result, an application for nine screens became one for 20 screens without any proper debate. As if that was not bad enough, by the time this business is finished, there will be more than 50 cinema screens in my constituency, which is far too many and clearly has a deleterious impact on Sheffield city centre. Does the Secretary of State accept that planning guidance should not be about warm words but about practical action? The development corporation's decision did not follow the guidance. The application will have a deleterious impact on the city centre and is not a proper use of the derelict land in question.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to comment on such a particular question. I am very pleased that Sheffield, with its development corporation, is now so attractive a place for people to invest in—which was not true when he was leading Sheffield city council.

Town Centre Managers

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many town centre managers are now in place; and how many there were five years ago. [3117]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): There are now more than 180 town centre managers in the UK, compared with fewer than 20 in 1991.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the post of town centre manager in Eastbourne was established in 1992 and that the present incumbent is Elliott Cairnes? The post forms a genuine partnership between the borough council and leading local retailers. It has had a broad measure of success in boosting the status of Eastbourne as a major regional shopping centre, as well as resisting the effects of out-of-town shopping development.

Mr. Jones: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in saying what a good job is being done by all those involved in the Eastbourne town centre initiative. Eastbourne is a very attractive place and should be successful. It can be so only through partnerships of the nature described by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Vaz: May I congratulate the Minister on adopting the policies on town centre issues that the Opposition have espoused over the past 10 years. It is a welcome conversion to common sense. I remind him that Labour councils, with their partners in the private sector, have been the ones to work hard to develop so many new initiatives on town centre management—without any help from the Government, him or the Secretary of State. Can the Minister point to one new policy—just one—that, if implemented, will directly assist town centre management, or is he just going to repeat some more political plagiarism?

Mr. Jones: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was hobbling when he came into the Chamber—that is the trouble with trying to keep one foot in each camp. The hon. Gentleman has been trying to tell the supermarket developers that the Labour party would relax our policy, and to tell consumers that it would protect them. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that too many town centres are being destroyed by unnecessary parking restrictions? Will he advise local authorities such as Barnet to get their finger out and do something about it?

Mr. Jones: Parking is a critical issue for reinforcing the attractiveness of town centres, and local authorities should look carefully at their policies to see whether they are putting people off coming to take advantage of the retail or leisure opportunities in their town centres.

Global Warming

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his estimate of global warming for the next five years. [3118]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): We are working on the basis of an estimated global average temperature increase of between 0.1 and 0.2 deg C over the next decade.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that a number of reputable estimates suggest that, within the next five years

the average increase in global temperature will be 0.5 deg C above the 1951 to 1981 average and that, over the past 50 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 300 to 360 parts per million? That suggests a substantial increase in global temperatures and, therefore, all the attendant problems of global warming. Given the conflicting evidence available to the Government, will the Minister, first, put more money into research into global warming, its causes and the likely crop effects and, secondly, do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this country and do his best worldwide to ensure that the agreements reached in Rio and other places are adhered to, so that we do not go into the next century with a significantly higher temperature than is already predicted?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will know that the estimates to which I referred are supported by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Hadley centre. It is important for us to work on the basis of the best scientific advice, which in this case is also accepted by other developed countries that have signed up to the climate change convention. As the hon. Gentleman may also know, since we signed up to that convention, we have gone a long way towards achieving our commitment, unlike many other countries.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that among the authorities that he takes note of are organisations such as NASA, which points out that the influence of sun spots, with the influence of volcanic activity, have more effect on global warming but that we can do nothing about them? Does he also agree that the amount of attention we pay to CO2 emissions, which have a deleterious effect on industry, is possibly out of all proportion to their importance?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. She should be aware of the many serious implications that would follow global warming in the long term, including the effect it would have on particular regions and on sea level. It is important for us to address those implications, and we are. My hon. Friend should also be aware, as should the Labour party, that unlike many other developed economies, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada and most of the European Union, this country is on course to comply with the targets it agreed in the climate change convention. We are now setting challenging targets for the future to protect our climate.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister accept that road traffic increase is bound to be one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions? Does he agree that it needs urgent attention and that the Government could take the lead by setting targets within a strategy for road traffic reduction? Will the Government indicate whether they will support the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which will shortly be introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?

Mr. Clappison: Our policies address the question of CO2 emissions from road traffic, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increases in road fuel duties. It is important to bear in mind the overall target for greenhouse gas emissions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we


signed up to the convention with other developed countries and it is important that we should have an objective and comprehensible target so that we are able to judge our progress and that of other countries. The hon. Gentleman will note that our progress is very good compared with that of many other countries.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to improve the energy efficiency of housing. [3119]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government operate and support a wide range of programmes and initiatives to improve and promote energy efficiency across all sectors of housing. We will continue to pursue them vigorously.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend and the Department have a good record in energy efficiency in housing. Will he confirm that more than a quarter of the energy use in this country is domestic usage? Will he therefore consider a further tightening of the building regulations with regard to new housing so that new homes use less energy and are among the most energy efficient in the world?

Mr. Jones: If one adds to the energy used in the home for heating and lighting the energy used by machinery within the home and in the generation of electricity, domestic usage accounts for about half of greenhouse gas emissions, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point. Yes, we can do a lot with new housing, but the vast majority of housing is older housing, and we must persuade the owners and renters of it to be less complacent about energy use.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the Minister's comments, with which I entirely agree, does he recall that, in March, the Government came within one vote of being defeated—on a proposal to reduce the level of VAT on energy-reducing materials to that on energy, to encourage precisely the work that he suggests? Has the Department of the Environment made representations to the Treasury to make that reduction in the coming Budget? We were told during the debate in March that the Department would consider such a proposal.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in any regard, but he can be certain that we shall continue our programmes to encourage the extension of energy efficiency equipment and measures in homes.

Mr. Evennett: How seriously are local authorities taking their responsibilities in promoting home energy efficiency? Is there any more that my hon. Friend can do to encourage them to take more action?

Mr. Jones: Many authorities are doing a good job in taking forward the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. I was fortunate to be able to present the prizes yesterday for the Home Energy Conservation Act programme, facilitated by the Energy Saving Trust with finance from

the Department. Other authorities must learn from the best, and that is why we will produce best practice guides as a result of our experience.

Mr. Meacher: Before he preens himself about any improvements, will the Minister say when he will apologise for the Secretary of State's cutting of the funding of the home energy efficiency scheme by fully a third earlier this year, which knocked £31 million off home insulation grants for the poor and elderly? When will he realise that a nationwide home energy efficiency scheme—which we do not have—would save fuel, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, prevent cold-related illnesses and hypothermia and create up to 50,000 new jobs? If he and the Secretary of State do not have the imagination or the vision to introduce such a win, win, win scheme, I can tell him that we certainly will.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that £30 million was added to the home energy efficiency scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT, which was voted down by the House—at which point that £30 million fell. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that they want to get on to the pudding even though they have refused to eat their greens.

Capital Challenge

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce which local authorities have been successful in their bids for funding under the pilot capital challenge scheme. [3121]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Before Christmas.

Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the key objectives of capital challenge is to assist in the regeneration of some of our historic towns while drawing in investment from the private sector and elsewhere to make that possible? With that in mind, will he give careful consideration to the excellent scheme proposed by High Peak borough council to assist in the regeneration of the historic Georgian and Victorian parts of Buxton to prepare them for the 21st century—a plan which surely deserves success under the excellent capital challenge scheme?

Mr. Curry: I will give careful consideration to that scheme, as I shall all the schemes that have been proposed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right: our intention is to allow local authorities to nominate their own priorities so that the Government choose the authority's priority if it stands up well. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received some 326 bids, and that nearly two thirds of authorities that could bid have done so. He is quite right to say that there is significant leverage. Some £1.5 billion has been bid for, but that money will pull in some £1.2 billion from other public sources and £1.3 billion from the private sector. The scheme is working alongside public and private moneys to help the priorities nominated by local communities.

Business Rates

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the application of non-domestic rates procedure to assist businesses in difficulties; and if he will make a statement [3123]

Mr. Curry: Local authorities have the power to grant up to 100 per cent. relief to any business that suffers hardship. We will shortly commence a review of that provision, beginning with a detailed analysis of the way in which local authorities use it.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister will be aware that rates take a large percentage of small businesses' profits and that new businesses have difficulty starting up because of the rate element. Will he extend to urban areas the relief for post offices and shops that is being implemented in rural areas? Will he also consider the problems facing small garages and public houses, which suffer an injustice because their rates are assessed on turnover rather than profit? He knows perfectly well that local authorities cannot afford to give rebates to the extent that he has suggested because of the Government's standard spending assessment; it is for the Government to find resources to help those businesses out of difficulty. Will he accept that the responsibility is his? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are rural areas as defined in the Local Government and Rating Bill in metropolitan areas, so an area that meets the criteria will benefit from all the advantages that the Bill will bring. The local authority will have the discretion to grant relief up to 100 per cent. to pubs and other businesses, both as a hardship relief and if so doing would serve the interests of the community.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that rural petrol stations are a vital service and that thousands of them have closed in recent times, not least because of the business rate? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government receive the total income from the non-domestic rate, does he believe that the Government should be obliged statutorily to make provision for extra allocation to local authorities that give assistance to petrol stations in rural areas?

Mr. Curry: Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to grant discretionary relief to garages if that is necessary in the interests of the community. If the garage serves as a general store, it will get the full relief, and 75 per cent. of all discretionary relief will be paid by the Exchequer.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the concept of discretionary relief, but the problem is that it may not be given. Should not a principle be established that, in development areas, businesses that have been hit should be re-rated immediately and we should not continue to extract from them money that they are not earning? I am thinking particularly of areas such as Sandy Row in my constituency where, for 20 years, through dithering in the Department, businesses have been hampered.

Mr. Curry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is always a great mistake to allow a long time to

pass without revaluation. After all, before the revaluation of 1990, there were 17 years without one, which led to an enormous number of appeals when it finally took place. It is important to keep the lists up to date; then, everybody knows where they are and the changes that take place have a greater chance of being widely accepted.

Mr. Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend remember a time when businesses in trouble removed roofs to avoid penal rates of local taxation imposed by the Labour party? When the economy started to improve, those factories were in no position to provide jobs, leaving civic leaders to whinge about the number of cinemas in their towns, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) did earlier.

Mr. Curry: I do indeed remember those circumstances; there was a migration of business from some of the places that most needed the revenues, jobs and the income they bring. That is why the Government changed the business rating system to give businesses a chance even where local councils were not prepared to give them one.

Sparsity Allowance

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many district councils qualify for a sparsity allowance in their standard spending assessment. [3124]

Mr. Gummer: The SSA of every district council reflects sparsity, even where it has a significant urban population, so 14 per cent. of Bassetlaw's SSA comes to it because of sparsity factor.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sparsity allowance is essential for rural areas because of the extra costs of refuse collection and public transport, for example? When rural areas were Conservative controlled there was no danger of the allowance being abolished, but now the vast majority are controlled by Labour or the Liberals, is there not a great temptation for the Government to abolish it and use the cash for income tax cuts in next Tuesday's Budget? Will he assure us that that will not happen?

Mr. Gummer: I would like the hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Labour-controlled London boroughs and others who have long pressed for the abolition of sparsity factor. He may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and I have made it clear that recent research broadly supports the present sparsity rules. I have not made a final decision, but I think that it is unlikely that I will want to move from the present system when the evidence shows that it should remain. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his Labour friends to stop bashing the countryside.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend and I represent rural areas. Does he agree that many of our constituents in the countryside and in rural villages do not enjoy the level of services that people in towns and cities take for granted? Is not that why the Local Government and Rating Bill's measures to protect the small village


post office, general store, public house and garage are so popular with parish councils? Can we be sure that district councils will have sufficient sparsity factor in their standard spending assessments to be able to afford the much needed discretionary relief?

Mr. Gummer: I remind my hon. Friend that 75 per cent. of that money will come from the Exchequer. I also remind him of the Bill's Second Reading, when Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen showed that they knew little—and cared less—about rural matters.

Standard Spending Assessment

Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on standard spending assessment. [3125]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others on standard spending assessments.

Mr. Pope: Is not it the case that if every council received the same support that Westminster council receives, most of them would be able to pay out rebates on the council tax and, in particular, if Hyndburn council received the same support as Westminster, it would be able to pay a rebate of £612 for every council tax payer in the borough? Does the hon. Gentleman understand the anger that this corrupt system causes?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if we went down that route, there would be another 14p on income tax. Perhaps he should examine some of his local authority's expenditure. I understand that it moved its school centre to the wrong location and so had to move it again—and then had to build a new building at a cost of £1.7 million.

Sir Irvine Patnick: My hon. Friend will, like me, be an avid reader of the Local Government Chronicle. Does he remember the 5 January 1996 article in which the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was quoted as saying that she does not promise to change the present system? Is not it an indictment that Labour is out of ideas and policy and is prepared to keep the existing system as it is?

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He has taken one of the shots that we would have fired at a later date. He is right, and it is interesting to watch the scrabble of feet among the Opposition.

Ms Armstrong: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) continues to misquote me. I have not given any commitments to additional funding because of the mess that the Government have made, but we will introduce a fair system. How can the Minister justify the current system? Under the Government grant system, the council tax payers of Westminster contribute only 4 per cent. to the cost of their services while, for example, the people of Wirral are expected to pay 24 per cent. Will he promise to change that system?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady should recognise that experts consider the SSA to be the fairest system.

However, some Opposition Members do not accept the word of experts. The taxpayer may not pay for any change, but the council tax payer will. First, the hon. Lady will massage the SSA, then she will remove capping, stop compulsory competitive tendering, return the business rate to local councils and introduce new regional authorities such as the Greater London council. I know who will pay for that—the council tax payer.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend will be aware of the initiative by Lancashire county council in requesting an independent review of the area cost adjustment. Although such a review may mean that the county gets £20 million less next year, and despite the stupidity of the Labour-controlled county council in asking for one in the first place, will my hon. Friend consider delaying its implementation for at least a year?

Sir Paul Beresford: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The review will be implemented only if we are absolutely sure that the new system is robust and stands up to close inspection.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total annual amount spent by his Department on energy conservation in each of the last three years. [3126]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department's expenditure on energy efficiency was £68.3 million in 1993–94, £109.9 million in 1994–95, and £132.8 million in 1995–96—a total of £311 million for the three years.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the cut of more than —30 million in the home energy efficiency scheme means that many people—particularly senior citizens—are no longer eligible for grants to insulate their homes or improve their heating systems? Now that the cold weather is upon us again and the last ever Budget of this miserable Tory Government is due next week, will the Minister make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase investment in the scheme in order to conserve energy and alleviate some of the hardship that has been caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked a similar question. I find that quite understandable, so let me repeat that £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the House voting for the second stage of VAT on fuel. As it did not, the £30 million fell. I realise that HEES is extremely popular and successful. Incidentally, it did not exist under the last Labour Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that eligibility has not been changed in any way, shape or form. Pensioners and disabled people qualify for help under HEES. The fact that those who are better off get a 25 per cent. discount while those on the lowest incomes get a 100 per cent. discount merely reflects the advice that we have received from many that the scheme should be more targeted.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend recall that, since Labour was in power, we have increased the number of


homes with loft insulation by more than double, to 89 per cent., we have increased the number of homes with cavity wall insulation tenfold, and increased the number of homes with double glazing sevenfold? Does not that demonstrate the success of the Government's policies?

Mr. Jones: That question certainly shows that my hon. Friend takes more interest in the subject than the whole of the Labour party put together. The HEES will have benefited 2 million households. That is an enormous achievement.

Water Companies

Mr. Pearson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the publication of the Office of Water Services' report on the financial performance and capital investment of the water companies in England and Wales in 1995 and 1996. [3127]

Mr. Gummer: None. However, I welcome the fact that the report shows that capital investment in the water industry has remained high—far higher than before privatisation. At the same time, the regulator has encouraged companies to reduce their costs and to improve their efficiency.

Mr. Pearson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Severn Trent's profits have virtually trebled since privatisation, and customer bills have rocketed by 44 per cent. more than inflation, but investment has been cut every year since 1991–92? Is he also aware that, since privatisation, Severn Trent has paid absolutely no corporation tax on its mainstream sewage and water businesses? Does that not amount to a double whammy on consumers and taxpayers in the west midlands?

Mr. Gummer: I am aware that, when the water companies were nationalised, they spent an average of £1.6 billion on investment; in comparable terms, they now spend an average of more than £3 billion. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the mess that was left behind because of public ownership of the water industry has now been cleared up and that people are coming from all over the world to ask British water companies to do their water improvements.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that, as the result of the huge capital investment by North West Water, the sea off Blackpool's beaches has now been greatly improved and that tourism businesses will benefit dramatically from the good news of Blackpool's beaches now being approved under European Community standards? Is that not a further demonstration that the Labour party's carping criticism does not reflect the reality of real investment to help Britain's tourism industry?

Mr. Gummer: I am certainly pleased by the clean-up of Blackpool's beaches, which was not possible when the water industry was nationalised. I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the former Labour leader of Manchester city council wrote to the Canadian authorities to try to undermine North West Water's bid to help the water industry in Canada—again hitting out against the

British water industry, British jobs and British investment. I hope that the Labour party will dissociate itself from its prospective candidate for Manchester, Blackley.

Local Government Finance

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what local authority delegations he has received concerning the 1997–98 revenue support grant settlement. [3128]

Sir Paul Beresford: I meet representatives of local authorities throughout the year to discuss a range of issues affecting local government. It is, of course, open to all authorities to request a meeting with Ministers during the formal consultation period that follows the provisional settlement announcement later this month.

Mrs. Jackson: Has the Minister read his Government's evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee in which they admit that it is policy that council tax levels should rise? Will he confirm today that the Government's policy is to hike up council tax, possibly by as much as 16 per cent. over the next two years? Does he recognise that that is the 23rd Tory tax rise since 1992 and that he cannot continue to blame Labour local councils for that?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am always sorry for the hon. Lady when it comes to defending her local council in Sheffield, which seems to get itself in straight difficulty. There is a thing called Supertram, which looks more like a black hole. The council's property services department is underselling properties by a huge degree, which is to the disadvantage of the local authority. In addition to that, the department seems to have lost 200 properties. Nevertheless, the authority has rewarded the managers of that service by giving them a £4,000 a year pay rise.

Sir Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend remember that, among the delegations that came to his Department this year, was one that represented a number of counties and all the major political parties and that was concerned about the unfairnesses of the area cost adjustment? Does he accept that those unfairnesses exist; that they were highlighted in the report by Professor Elliott; and that, if nothing is done to implement the recommendations in that report, those profound injustices will continue to affect Northamptonshire and many other counties?

Sir Paul Beresford: I do recall my hon. Friend's visit with his delegation. As he will be aware, the report contained as many findings for as against, so before we implement the report's recommendations, we must be absolutely sure that they are well founded.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Budget to be announced next week, the Government plan to increase council tax way above the rate of inflation as part of their long-term plan to raise council tax by £3.5 billion—equivalent to adding 2p to the standard rate of income tax?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman ought to know better. He has been here far longer than I have, and


even I realise that that is a silly question, which I cannot answer; that will be left for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the right time.

Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister heard of an organisation called SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's microphone is not on and no one can hear him.

Mr. Bellingham: I think that the Minister heard; I mentioned SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team, headed by King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and its superb treasurer, David Tate. Can my hon. Friend confirm that representatives have visited his colleague, the Minister of State, and can he confirm that their views and representations will be listened to?

Sir Paul Beresford: I can confirm the point, and yes they are being taken on board and listened to carefully.

Capital Challenge

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authority leaders concerning capital challenge. [3129]

Mr. Curry: Progress with the pilot scheme is regularly discussed at ministerial bimonthly meetings with the local government associations.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that council leaders everywhere are worried about the time taken in preparing bids for all those challenge-type schemes? They are fed up with the fact that no extra money is made available for them, they are fed up with the rules continually changing and they are fed up with those schemes not dealing with the urgent priorities of expenditure that exist in many parts of the country.

Mr. Curry: I was expecting the hon. Member to make that comment, because he firmly represents old Labour. Whenever we introduce a scheme, local authority leaders say, "This is terrible; it is new, it is innovative. We want to carry on as we always have," and when it works and it delivers they say, "That was a very good scheme indeed; you ought to continue it."
There is new money—the money we bring in from the private sector. That is what is so good about the challenge programme. It adds private sector money to public sector money, and very many Labour local authority leaders throughout the country will benefit from it and are beginning to appreciate the schemes greatly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What sort of money is coming from the private sector? My right hon. Friend noted that local authority leaders always say that they cannot find matching funds and then promptly go off and do just that from completely new, non-public funds. Can he give us an idea of how much that has saved for the taxpayer?

Mr. Curry: In the capital challenge programme, according to the bids that we have received, for every

£1 bid, £1.70 comes with it, of which 90p is from the private sector. Those are the bids; we expect better figures in the final acceptances.

Rents-to-mortgages Scheme

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [3130]

Mr. Clappison: Our Department has made no estimate of future sales.

Mr. Cunningham: Given that many people are experiencing mortgage repayment difficulties, would it not have been far better to introduce a scheme for mortgages to rents, instead of that Tory political dogma?

Mr. Clappison: No. I make no apology for a policy that was one of a range of options for enabling tenants to become home owners. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our policies have succeeded in enabling tenants to become home owners—more than 1.5 million have done so since 1979 and many more will have that opportunity under a Conservative Government in future.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last three months concerning opencast mining planning applications; and if he will make a statement. [3132]

Sir Paul Beresford: My Department has received representations from three members of the public, a firm of solicitors, the Ramblers Association and the hon. Member concerning opencast mining planning applications in the last three months.

Mr. Barnes: Why is the north-east corner of Derbyshire, involving the constituencies of Chesterfield, Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire, bottom of the league when it comes to standard spending assessment per head of population, bottom of the league when it comes to lottery grants, but top of the league when it comes to having its guts ripped out by opencast mining operations and current applications? Should not the rules be changed, so that there is a disposition against opencast mining, rather than the pressure for it from the Government?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman had better read the changes that we introduced in MPG 3. I will send him a copy.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the Windsor site in my constituency, and that that could shortly become the subject of an application to Kirklees council for opencast mining? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recently visited the constituency to tell local residents that he was the white knight on the charger who would refuse all such applications in the future?

Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) also told the nation how much it would cost to import coal, as we shall not have any.

Public Services (Rotherham)

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the level of Government funding from his Department for the provision of public services by Rotherham metropolitan borough council in 1996–97. [3133]

Mr. Curry: The main financial support from central Government is the revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates. Rotherham gets £159,894 million from those sources.

Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that if Rotherham and other northern and midlands boroughs got the same money as central Government give to sleaze-ridden Westminster, we would not have to put up council tax? When will the Government treat the rest of the country on a par with their friends in sleaze-ridden councils in London?

Mr. Curry: Westminster, of course, does not get anywhere near the amount of grant that Tower Hamlets receives. If Rotherham were to get the grant of Tower Hamlets, that would clearly be a massive injustice. I intend to see that grant goes where it is most needed, and the inner London authorities are uniformly where it is most needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3146]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the low level of unemployment in my constituency, Congleton, which has fallen by a further 7.5 per cent. over the past year, would immediately be put in jeopardy if the minimum wage, the 48-hour working week and the social chapter were implemented?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am delighted that that fall is mirrored in the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House. It is certainly the case that, were extra impositions such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend to be placed on employers, they would stop the fall in unemployment and send it returning upwards. That is not what we want, which is why we shall not accept the social chapter or such impositions.

Mr. Blair: Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?

The Prime Minister: We are seeking to make progress as soon as we can on every aspect of improvement in the

health service. We have given priority to other matters. That has brought the waiting list down, widened the number of operations that have been offered and improved the quality of care. As we can, we shall move on the other issue.

Mr. Blair: My point is that the Government made a specific promise two years ago that that issue would be a priority. Is not what is needed a proper programme that is led and co-ordinated by Government with the health authorities and national health service trusts, and the setting of a specified timetable to eliminate those wards, which cause enormous indignity, and distress people? The Government would thereby keep the promise that was made two years ago.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating—I agree with him—a properly managed examination of what could be done to improve the service across the health service. I agree with that. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on management. Management has been concentrating on getting more people treated. More people have been treated, and management will continue to move to improve that, and to improve the quality, dignity and privacy of service, as we announced.

Mr. Blair: I find it extraordinary that the Government are spending £1.5 billion more on administration—

Mr. Devlin: He is out of order: he must ask a question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

Mr. Blair: Might I point out to the Prime Minister that there are 20,000 more senior managers and that £1.5 billion extra is spent on administration? Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem? It is a question not just of money, but of political will. My point is very simple: did not the Prime Minister promise two years ago to deal with the problem? Why has he not delivered? If he does not deliver on that promise, why should anyone believe his promises about the national health service?

The Prime Minister: If I had said at the last election that we would treat as many new patients as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman would not have believed me. If I had said at the last election that we would deliver extra resources, he would not have believed me. He and his colleagues claimed that we would privatise the health service. We said that we would not, and we have not. I hope that he accepts that that is the case now, and that it will not occur in the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fact.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3147]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 640—22 per cent.—since the beginning of the year? Is not a reason for that good news the fact that the United Kingdom has a stable industrial climate with few strikes, except in the public sector? Is it not true that only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to do anything about that problem because the Labour party, with its strong links to the unions, is still the strikers' friend?[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

The Prime Minister: There seems to be some support on the Opposition Benches for Labour's support of the strikes—I hope that everyone noticed it.
I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we are attracting more foreign investment than any other country is our success in restoring industrial stability in the private sector. The number of strikes today is one twenty-fifth of the level that it was when we came to government in 1979. I believe that people deserve the same protection against strikes in the public sector that they increasingly enjoy elsewhere. If Opposition Members do not agree, I suggest that they ask businesses whose post was not delivered and travellers who could not get to work because of strikes in those sectors.

Mr. Hume: Given the Government's praiseworthy efforts to promote agreement among the political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), proposes to reduce the number of education boards—which are the most highly respected cross-community bodies in Northern Ireland—from five to three? During the consultation process, every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, the leaders of all political parties, all Church leaders and all local authorities disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Why are the Government ignoring the unanimous wish of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to education?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the position with my right hon. Friend, but I shall examine the details of the hon. Gentleman's claims and then write to him. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not have an extremely good reason for any decision he may have taken.

Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Points of order come after questions, private notice questions and statements.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average household electricity bill in the eastern area is £272, while in France it is £366 and in Germany it is £394? Does that not demonstrate the success of electricity privatisation? Is not a sign of its success the fact that the Opposition wish to impose a windfall profits tax on the industry and put it at risk?

The Prime Minister: The comparative prices that my hon. Friend quotes are a striking tribute to the success of privatisation over the past 18 years. I am delighted to see them. I very much hope that we shall keep those prices down. My hon. Friend is entirely right: a windfall tax would force prices up for consumers, and at an unknown amount, because we do not yet know precisely who will be subject to the windfall tax or what the levy would be on companies and thence on consumers.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3148]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms Cunningham: With regard to yesterday's meeting in Brussels, and the beef ban, is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Union for Scotland is openly accusing the Government of straightforward prevarication in their refusal to proceed with the selective cattle cull, and that that gives rise to a very real apprehension that the Government are simply trying to stoke anti-European feeling in advance of an election and, indeed, to sacrifice the farmers? Why does he continue to set his face against a phased lifting of the ban, which would be of immediate benefit to Scotland and Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of all the things that are going on in Brussels and the discussions that we are having, or she certainly would not have asked her question in that fashion.

Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to pensioners in my constituency who are worried that the so-called flexible decade of retirement will mean massive increases in public spending and taxes or a severe cut in the state retirement pension?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that the plans proposed by the Opposition, in which a flexible decade of retirement would enable some people to retire early, would mean a massive increase in public expenditure, which they have said that they would not provide, or a significant cut in the basic rate of pension. I suggest that they come clean on precisely what they propose.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3149]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Is it still the Prime Minister's position that there is a moral case for cutting taxation? If so, can he explain the moral case for promising to cut taxation before an election and for increasing it as soon as the election is over?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe in cutting taxation, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when it is appropriate to cut taxation again in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by cutting taxation we are giving money back to people. I would say that by cutting taxation we are taking less of people's own money.

Mr. Atkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3150]

The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent auditor's report, published yesterday, of the criminal and corrupt activities of Labour councillors on Labour-controlled Preston borough council who have lost or mislaid millions of pounds of Preston taxpayers' money in recent years? Does he agree that that is the real example of sleaze and corruption in public life which should be rooted out? Is not that further example of Labour mismanagement of local authorities damning proof of what will happen if Labour ever controls our country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the character of any party becomes clear until it is in power. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In local government, Labour is in power, and in power it has a habit of pouring taxpayers' money down the drain and running up debts. Right across the country, where there are Labour councils one can see that "If you vote red, you live in the red."

Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3151]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is difficult to hear.

Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister think again about his crass and insensitive reply to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he appreciate that the issue of mixed-sex wards is of particular importance to women? Does he know that 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual abuse? Will he give us a date when he will meet the promise that he gave two years ago? If not, how can we believe that the NHS is safe in the Government's hands?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Lady spend Question Time after Question Time painting a picture of the NHS that does not exist for those who use it. During our 18 years in office, we have continually put more resources into the NHS, widened the services available to it, ensured that more operations are carried out and cut waiting times. That is a record that no previous Government have been able to match. If the hon. Lady remembers, it was under the previous Labour Government that waiting lists went up, hospitals were closed and the NHS practically came to a full stop.

Channel Tunnel (Fire)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fire in the channel tunnel.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): At approximately 8.45 pm GMT yesterday, a fire broke out in a lorry on board a Eurotunnel freight shuttle inside the channel tunnel between Calais and Folkestone. The shuttle was carrying 29 heavy goods vehicles with 31 drivers and companions, plus three crew members. The shuttle, on its way from France, had a French driver and crew. It stopped 12 miles through its journey on the French side of the tunnel.
Emergency services, firefighters and ambulances, arrived at the scene within 20 minutes and helped evacuate everyone on board the shuttle. Twenty-eight were taken back to France by a tourist shuttle travelling in the untouched northern tunnel, and six were evacuated by the service tunnel transport system. Eight people were taken to hospital, two of whom were detained, including the driver of the shuttle; their condition is reported to be serious but not life threatening. I understand that both will be discharged today.
French and British fire brigades worked through the night to bring the fire under control. The emergency is now over. I am sure that the House will want to join me in congratulating the emergency services on the way in which they coped with the incident and in expressing relief that there were no fatalities.
The French authorities have already begun a formal inquiry. That is for them since the incident happened in the French part of the tunnel. Eurotunnel's own investigation is under way. In addition, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which includes representatives from this country and France, will be making its own inquiry into the incident and studying the reports from the operators and the French authorities. The safety authority's findings will be made public. I shall be urging my French counterpart, Mr. Pons, to ensure that the French authorities publish their findings as soon as they properly can so that the lessons of this incident can be learnt by all concerned.
In the meantime, it would be wrong to speculate on the causes of the fire. I can assure the House, however, that representatives of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority are on site and will not allow either passenger or freight operations to recommence until Eurotunnel can prove that that can be done safely.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House of Commons will be grateful to the firefighters of both countries for their immediate response and the efficiency of the manner in which they carried out the rescue of the drivers trapped in the tunnel? Is he also aware that the safety authority originally recommended that semi-open wagons should not be used for the carriage of heavy goods vehicles? Last July, when I questioned his Department about a new risk assessment of the dangers arising from the carriage of heavy goods vehicles in semi-open wagons, I was told that there was no need for such an assessment, and that everything was for the best in the best of all worlds.
Given that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority changed its original advice, because it was told that it should take account of the costs and commercial interests of the channel tunnel operators, does the Secretary of State agree that it is imperative that safety be the first assessment? Does he further agree that even if it costs money to enclose heavy goods vehicles in wagons that, last night, would have prevented the spread of toxic fumes and the considerable difficulty caused to the people who had to lie on the floor for 20 minutes, that should be undertaken immediately, irrespective of the results of any inquiry?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the emergency services. I am sure that the House endorses her comments.
I think that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority will want to reconsider the shuttle design when the inquiries that I have announced have been completed. The safety authority approved the shuttle design before it was used by Eurotunnel and the other operators. Before approval was given, it carried out extensive fire modelling and full-scale fire tests on a loaded heavy goods vehicle. The CTSA would not have approved the design, had it not been satisfied that its concerns about safety had been met. It is independent of the operators. None the less, I am sure that the authority will return to this matter when we have the results of the three inquiries.

Mr. Roger Gale: May I, on behalf of my constituents, add my thanks to those of my right hon. Friend for the work of the Kent fire brigade last night? It was a tremendous tribute to its training and professionalism.
The question of open-sided or lattice-sided lorries was raised as long ago as 1991, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs looked into fire safety in the channel tunnel and serious concerns were expressed. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that this issue is re-examined, and that attention is paid to the fact that, last night, although passengers should have been evacuated without injury, they were not? Will he ensure that the findings of the three inquiries are published, and that the necessary remedial action, whatever it may be, is taken?

Sir George Young: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. As I have said, I am sure that the CTSA will re-examine the design of the wagons. I made it clear that the results of two of the inquiries will be made public. The third inquiry is the responsibility of the French authority, because it is the lead health and safety authority in this instance.
I also make it clear that I will contact the French Transport Minister to express my wish that he make public the results of his inquiries—as we intend to do with our two inquiries. I am sure that all bodies will want to ensure that the recommendations that emerge from the inquiries are pursued with vigour.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I, too, strongly praise the bravery of the victims and the heroism of the train crew and the emergency services. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be full public disclosure of the evidence examined by as well as the conclusions of the formal inquiry, the CTSA inquiry and


the Eurotunnel report, together with the results of the safety tests on the wagons to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred, so that the public know that, as a matter of priority, all safety aspects have been thoroughly reviewed and the necessary action has been taken?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that question. I agree with him that it is important to reassure the public and to re-establish public confidence in the link. The results of the inquiries to be undertaken in the United Kingdom will be made public. Eurotunnel has made it clear that it wants to co-operate with the CTSA. I will be talking to the French to ensure that the results of their inquiries are published. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the interests of re-establishing public confidence, it is important to be as open about the inquiries as one possibly can be.

Mr. David Shaw: May I express my concern for those who were in the channel tunnel last night in very dangerous and difficult circumstances? May I also raise the issue of enclosed freight wagons? I understand that the only reason why the wagons are not enclosed is the fact that a mathematical error was made in the adding up of the weights, which means that the axles cannot take an enclosed wagon.
There are other safety concerns. A passenger train behind the freight train was unable to continue on its journey. We have always been told that, if there were a fire in a train moving through the channel tunnel, that train would continue and the fire would be put out in a siding, so that all passenger trains following behind would be able to go through the tunnel safely.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking my constituents in Dover and Deal, who have experienced considerable difficulty today in coping with the ferry problems caused by the large amount of additional traffic through the port of Dover?

Sir George Young: I am sure that those conducting the inquiries will want to examine, among other things, the options available to the driver and the reasons for the decisions that he made. I think that it would be wrong to speculate at this stage, but those conducting the inquiries will want to know how the driver responded to the emergency with which he was confronted.
A fully enclosed design would have reduced the risk of fire spreading, but, as my hon. Friend implied, such a design would have other consequences. I am sure that the CTSA will want to revisit that issue, and I shall ensure that the inquiries deal with the other issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Chidgey: May I add my congratulations on the way in which the emergency services tackled what could have been a disaster?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Eurotunnel has claimed in the past that the wagons were designed in such a way that they could resist fire for some 30 minutes, and could therefore be safely transported to the end of the tunnel? In the event of their being immobilised, they could

be uncoupled, and the train could either continue forwards or be reversed out of the tunnel. In the event of the whole train being immobilised, passengers could be evacuated into the service tunnel, and the ventilation system could be controlled so as to blow the fumes and smoke away from them.
None of that happened. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that those factors are fully taken into account in the inquiries, and that the results and the tests are open to the public rather than being cloaked in secrecy, which is the current arrangement?

Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the 30-minute fire resistance refers to the passenger coaches rather than the wagons that were carrying the lorries. Certainly, the performance of the ventilation system is important; the inquiries will cover that, and I shall ensure that they take on board the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in his inquiries, the weight attributed to the Kent fire brigade is taken into consideration? I understand from some of the accounts that a high proportion of the brigade's total resources were waiting to see whether they would be required. It is very unsettling for us, in this large county, to find that we are given no additional assistance to deal with the enormous transport corridor that is on our doorstep.

Sir George Young: I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that his question deals with a slightly broader issue than the issue covered in my statement. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as it relates to the resources available to my hon. Friend's local authority.
As for pressure on fire services in Kent, the CTSA, which is conducting one of the inquiries, includes as one of its members Kent's county fire officer. I assume that he will bring the issue raised by my hon. Friend to the authority's attention.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiries are not drawn so narrowly as to exclude examination of Eurotunnel's general stewardship of safety and security in the tunnel? Does he agree that safety and security are, in fact, indivisible? Has not Transec—which I believe is a department within the Secretary of State's stewardship—recently indicated that it nearly closed the tunnel, and are not search arrangements for both commercial vehicles and passengers under review? Is not the work about to be hived off to an agency? Indeed, that may have already happened.
As well as being reassured about the circumstances relating to the fire, and told why assurances were not fulfilled last night, the public need to be satisfied that security is of paramount importance, and that there will be no diminution in the level of security—although there are indications that that might happen.

Sir George Young: Security is important, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not the practice of Ministers to go into details of security arrangements for any particular transport mode. The inquiry will cover


everything that is relevant and I remind him that the CTSA is independent of Eurotunnel. It has been set up under the treaty of Canterbury to advise and to assist the intergovernmental commission on all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the fixed link. Those terms of reference are broad enough to cover everything that is relevant to last night's incident.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not to the credit of the Kent ferry industry that, with this terrible disaster in the tunnel stopping traffic going through it, that industry has risen to the challenge and, with virtually no disruption, has provided proper ferry services? Will my right hon. Friend join in the thanks that have already been voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and that would no doubt be echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to his constituents, who are also involved in the industry?

Sir George Young: Clearly, passengers wanting to get across the channel from both directions have faced enormous difficulties. I understand that there has been a good response from the ferry companies, which, despite today's difficult weather, have been able to accommodate many of the people who would otherwise have remained stranded.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is not just a question of being wise after the event. May I refer to the precise question that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tabled on 22 July, which was answered by the Minister for Railways and Roads, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts)? Why is it that the intergovernmental commission was not asked to examine or decline to examine the question of toxic fumes in relation to semi-open wagons? This was not only in a sense predictable, but predicted, foreseeable and foreseen by my hon. Friend.

Sir George Young: The CTSA needs no such directions or instructions from Ministers. It has been set up precisely to advise and assist the intergovernmental commission on all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the fixed link. It includes on its membership the Kent county fire officer, the deputy chief inspector of railways, civil engineers and people with health and safety expertise. It has the remit and the capacity to investigate matters that are of concern to it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was excellent co-operation

between safety personnel on both the British and French side in what was a frightening incident, mercifully in contrast with the heavy and tragic loss of life on ferry boats in the past? None the less, unless there is a thorough investigation, one cannot be sure that worse things will not occur. Will he promise to include in the range of items to be investigated profoundly the prohibition of combustible materials, particularly those emitting toxic smoke and poisonous smoke fumes?

Sir George Young: I am sure that the inquiries will want to consider those particular issues, but my hon. Friend has reminded the House that the rescue system worked broadly as planned. Of course any casualties are deeply regretted, but there was no loss of life and that is a tribute to the emergency services.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the House was considering the Act that authorised the construction of the channel tunnel, serious concerns were expressed about the implications of some of the shuttle service's design features and their possible implications for fire safety? Given his emphasis on the safety authority's role, does he also recall that serious concerns were voiced that its role was to react to Eurotunnel's proposals and to assess those, rather than to recommend what might be the most appropriate design to guarantee optimum safety? Will he therefore now ensure that, in the investigation and inquiry into yesterday's unfortunate accident, the safety authority is not precluded from considering whether alternative design arrangements, both for heavy goods vehicle wagons and for wagons carrying motor cars, where there is no segregation between passengers and vehicles, may not be the best arrangements for guaranteeing the public's safety? Will he ensure that the public's safety and the most appropriate design arrangement to secure it, are at the forefront of the minds of all the people who are responsible for considering the results of the inquiry?

Sir George Young: I believe that I am right in saying that both the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Committee considering the legislation to which he refers. It took a substantially long time to get through the House, due in part, if I may say so, to his objections— [Interruption.]—not just on safety; it raised a number of broader issues. Of course, safety considerations must be paramount. As I said earlier, I am sure that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority will want to consider precisely the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised—the design of the wagons concerned.

Trade Unions

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I would like to make a statement on the Green Paper on industrial action and trade unions, which I have published today.
Industrial relations in this country have improved beyond recognition since the Government were elected in 1979. In that year, almost 30 million working days were lost through industrial action. Last year, the figure was 415,000—down by more than 98 per cent. In 1994, we lost fewer days than in any calendar year since records began in 1891.
Our industrial relations record—once a music-hall joke—is now a major selling point for the country. Foreign investors appreciate the transformation. It helps to explain why the United Kingdom attracts more inward investment from outside the European Union than any other member state.
The Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations law has played a significant part in that rehabilitation. It put an end to abuses such as the closed shop and the car park show of hands. It created a fairer balance in the workplace. It created a fairer balance, framed by law, between individual union members and their union's leaders.
The Government began this series of reforms with the Employment Act 1980. We built on that base carefully and after consultation, targeting specific problems in five further rounds of legislation. We have crafted a legal framework which is, on the whole, working very well. Each step along the way was fiercely opposed by Labour Members.
However, the events of this summer have reminded us of the damage and suffering that strikes can inflict. More working days were lost in the single month of August than during the whole of last year. Millions of people had their lives disrupted by strikes on the London underground and on the railways. Firms had their business disrupted by a succession of postal strikes.
Happily, many of the summer's disputes are settled or on the way to settlement, as they should always have been, by negotiation. However, there is a danger that bad examples will be followed. Today, most universities throughout the country are suffering from the effects of industrial action taken by eight different unions. In Scotland, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is planning a five-day strike that will paralyse rail travel throughout Scotland from 26 November.
The Government will not stand by and watch the virus of crude strike action flare up again as it did this summer. Our people deserve protection both from excessive use of the strike weapon, which should always be only the weapon of last resort, and from the cynical use of the public as hostages in a dispute.
Our enormously successful privatisation programme has introduced competition in many areas, and we must seek to extend that. Strikes these days are largely concentrated in the public sector and in services where there is little or no competition and therefore little alternative for the public who depend on these services.

More than 70 per cent. of all days lost through strikes occur in those areas, where the public sector or monopolies predominate, compared with around 10 per cent. in the 1970s. In those sectors, the scope for inflicting damage is great and the constraints minimal.
It is precisely because some strikes cause disproportionate disruption to the public that the Government must act to mitigate that damage. The proposals in the Green Paper are aimed to contain damage to the public caused by strikes of that kind, especially strikes where the public have no alternative.
I have concluded that a new approach is required—an approach which avoids the difficulty of defining in advance which services are essential. Instead, the Green Paper proposes that strikes should lose immunity if their effects are "disproportionate or excessive".
That is a reasonable and measured approach. It means that unions must think more carefully before embarking on industrial action. They will need to consider what effect their action might have on third parties. If they call strikes that threaten health or safety, or national security, or which cause serious damage to property, or which significantly disrupt everyday life or activities, they could lose their statutory immunity. In other words, the rights of innocent third parties—the public, businesses—will be brought into the equation.
I cannot see how anyone can argue that unions should have immunity from the law to cause such damage or disruption to those not directly involved in their disputes, but directly affected by their strike action. So, if a trade union calls, or threatens to call, action which has or is likely to have disproportionate or excessive effects, the workers' employer, and other businesses affected, could go to court to seek an injunction or interdict either to stop the union or, if necessary, to sue the union for damages. Moreover, anyone who is deprived of goods or services as a result of industrial action with disproportionate or excessive effects could apply for a court order to stop the union. The Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action could assist such applicants.
I repeat that this is a measured proposal. Trade unions that behave responsibly and take the wider public and national interest into account have nothing to fear from it.
The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals to encourage the responsible conduct of industrial action. Strikes should be called only as a last resort. They should not be precipitate—adequate notice should be given to all concerned. That gives time for talks that might avert the strike altogether and gives those likely to be affected by a strike the time to make contingency preparations. At present, unions have to give seven days' notice of industrial action. The Green Paper proposes that the notice period should be increased to 14 days.
Strikes should be called only when the union's members have first voted clearly in support, in a secret ballot. The Green Paper proposes that, henceforth, at least half of those eligible to vote must support the proposed industrial action. Going on strike is a serious decision. It involves breaching contracts; it can have far-reaching effects on the livelihoods of both strikers and others; it can bankrupt firms or lead to factories being closed. So it is right that such action should have the support of a majority of all those who can participate in such a decision.
In addition, the initial ballot should not give a union an open-ended mandate for striking. Trade union members should be able to say from time to time whether they still support the action or whether they are prepared to return to work. The Green Paper therefore proposes that there should be a fresh ballot after two or three months, where action is continuous, or after a specified number of short strikes.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Lang: That fresh ballot will increase the democratic control of trade union members and force all unions to come up to the standards of good practice that some already follow. Opinions on the most appropriate time scales will be welcomed.
The Government have taken the opportunity of the Green Paper to review legislation other than that relating to industrial action. We conclude that most of it is working as intended and is as relevant today as when it was first enacted. In some other—relatively minor—areas, however, some changes should now be considered. The Green Paper suggests changes to remove the obligation on employers to provide certain facilities and information to recognised trade unions. Those matters, like much else in our system of industrial relations, should be left to management and unions to decide for themselves. There is no compelling reason why the law should intervene in that area. I am also suggesting some minor adjustments to remove anomalies in procedures for union elections.
The Green Paper is being issued initially as a basis for consultation. It discusses various options and explains why the Government favour some and not others. It invites views and suggestions. Each major step of our reform of industrial relations legislation has been preceded by consultation, which has ensured that measures have been well targeted and workable. I look forward to receiving constructive comments on the latest set of proposals.
In recent years, our industrial relations have been a remarkable success story. We must build on that success and not allow ourselves to fall back into the old, self-destructive ways. The Government's proposals are designed to ensure that the last vestiges of our irresponsible, strike-prone tradition are removed. They match the expectations of the public as we approach the beginning of the new century as well as the needs of our modern, successful and competitive economy. I commend them to the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: The Green Paper is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. It does nothing to prevent or to resolve disputes. It is simply a lawyer's charter, an invitation to mischief makers and for political point scoring. It has more to do with the proximity of a general election than with improving industrial relations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who is in favour of the proposals? Will he tell us whether any of his predecessors, from Lord Tebbit, who held the post from 1981 to 1983, through the following seven Secretaries of State, is in favour? Is the present Home Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the present Secretary of State for Education and Employment in favour of them? Is even the present Secretary of State

for Defence in favour? None of them acted on the Green Paper of 1981 or the Tory party manifesto pledge of 1983. Will the President confirm that the Green Paper merely repeats those mantras?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which businesses or organisations representing business are in favour, from small businesses through to the Institute of Directors? Will he tell the House whether the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or experts in industrial law support the measures? Will he tell us how using words such as "virus" is helpful to improving industrial relations? Is not the Green Paper calculated to inflame and to exacerbate rather than to heal?
What justification has the right hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposes to make in the balloting rules and procedures to deny people a simple majority? Is it not a fact that, on 1 November, on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, he said that he had got that proposal from his local golf club rules? Frankly, that is an insult to everyone engaged in industrial relations. Will he give the House an example of a dispute that would fall into the category of being disproportionate or excessive in effect? How would the courts rule on the effects of actions in a case in which, for instance, access to new technology changed entirely the impact, and therefore the effect, on an individual's companies or groups? Would the proposals help in any way if there were an increase in unofficial strikes?
Will the President tell the House under what circumstances he would have to send in the Official Solicitor to bail out again people who fell into the category of those who had to be imprisoned for refusing to obey an injunction under the Green Paper that he has published today? Does he really think that denying the people the right to time off as union representatives, or the information necessary to sit down and reach agreement with their employer, will help industrial relations in Britain in the late 1990s?
What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the role of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action? Will he confirm this afternoon that £98,000 a year is spent on that commissioner; that £18,000, at the last count, was spent on a salary for a one-day-a-week post; that in 1995, the last year for which figures are available, only three cases were referred to the commissioner; and that in 1994 no cases were referred to the commissioner? Does he think that that is value for money, and does he intend to use that procedural mechanism under his Green Paper?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while all of us believe that the life, safety or health of the individual or the nation as a whole are crucial and should be protected, they are definable and, under existing laws, they are achieved? But how would the definition
significant disruption of everyday life or activities
be defined on the face of the Bill? How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman think that we would be able to sort out such a mish-mash?
Is this not a Government attempt to sweep away the sensible measures of advice, conciliation, arbitration and mediation; an attempt in the lead-up to a general election to politicise relations which, by the Secretary of State's own admission, are currently better than they have been for many years? Is the statement not a prime example of a Government falling back into what he described this afternoon as "old, self-destructive ways"? This


right-wing, dogmatic Government are determined to go backwards to a bygone era, rather than forwards to a new century. Enough is enough. It is time to give the people the real ballot they need, to get a new Government with a new vision for a new millennium.

Mr. Lang: At least the hon. Gentleman commented on industrial relations and strikes—unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who, when invited last July to condemn the strike on London Underground, said:
I have nothing whatever to say.
Unfortunately, most of what the hon. Gentleman has said is wrong. He asked me who was in favour of the changes, and suggested that none of my colleagues is. I am happy to reassure him that all my colleagues in government support the changes, and are looking forward to the consultation process and the subsequent enactment of the proposals. He suggested that my predecessors might not be in favour, yet in his next breath suggested that all the proposals have appeared in earlier Green Papers. He is wrong—none of the proposals in the Government's package has been contained in previous Green Papers.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the proposals would make matters worse, but I suggest to him that they are fair, focused and reasonable, and give rights to the public. The proposals are shifting the balance against strikes and strikers as the weapons of first resort, and they will make sure that the unions will be bound in future to consider more carefully before going on strike the implications of their strikes and the effect that they will have on the public for fear of the loss of their immunity.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider proposals that would make matters worse, he should look at Labour's proposals—forcing employers to recognise trade unions for bargaining purposes, granting trade unions new legal protections for strikers, giving new powers to trade unions, encouraging—as the right hon. Member for Derby, South would do—a return to secondary picketing, and giving the trade unions a say in the Labour party's manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that this Green Paper is a pre-election gimmick, but Labour said that in 1979, when 30 million days were lost through strikes, in 1983 and 1987, when the figure was down to 7 million days lost, and in 1992, when the figure for days lost was down to about 500,000 a year. We believe that the measures are well considered and relevant, and will reduce industrial action in those public services where there is no alternative and on which the public depend.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the circumstances where lawyers might benefit, but we contemplate clear guidance on the criteria for what is disproportionate and excessive. I anticipate that, far from thousands suing trade unions, it is more likely that one will be granted an injunction to prevent a strike from happening. More to the point, trade union behaviour will change, and there will be fewer strikes as a result of the proposals.
The hon. Member asked about majorities, and pressed me to give an example. Under the Companies Acts, there are proposals that require a majority of those eligible to vote, so the proposal is well precedented. He suggests that it is our purpose to sweep away ACAS, but I can reassure

him that the Government have no intention whatever to reduce or diminish the powers of ACAS. We believe that arbitration and conciliation are essential prerequisites to the resolution of industrial disputes, and are far more relevant to their resolution than the spontaneous industrial action that has become the norm in recent months in the public services.
We have heard evidence from the hon. Gentleman that Labour will always choose to side with the union leaders who bankroll the party, rather than the ordinary public when their interests are threatened. Labour has a shameful record on industrial relations—not just in office, but throughout its opposition to every measure that we have introduced to transform industrial relations in this country. This Green Paper contains a further package of proposals that are relevant and will continue that improvement.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tory Back Benchers seem to be on strike—we have only the flying pickets.

Sir Norman Fowler: As a previous Secretary of State for Employment, I entirely support and welcome the Green Paper. Does not history show that every piece of legislation that has been introduced by the Government on industrial relations has been opposed by the Labour party, and that on every occasion it has been wrong? The people who would support the proposals are the public, who are entirely fed up with having their essential services, especially transport services, messed up as they have been over the past 12 months and in the preceding years.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was noticeable that, when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked which bodies supported the proposals, he did not ask whether commuters or consumers supported them, because he knows perfectly well that they do.
My right hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the Labour party's record, both in government and in opposition; it has opposed at every step our improvements in industrial relations: secret ballots in place of car park meetings, the abolition of the closed shop, and getting rid of secondary picketing. It is clear that Labour would reintroduce trade union powers and begin to reverse our successes of recent years. We are determined to continue with our improvements, and the Green Paper offers a way in which to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is not a time for statements; it is a time for brisk questions, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reply equally briskly.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Is not the fact that the proposals are in a Green Paper rather than in one of the political gimmick Bills that are flowing forth from other Departments evidence that not even a Conservative Government would really try to implement them? Would not the opportunity for vexatious litigation in which anyone could argue about the meanings of disproportionate and excessive simply amount to a charter


for lawyers to make a fortune? Surely it would be better to promote no-strike deals, involving workers taking a reward in exchange for voluntarily giving up the right to strike. Is not this an example of the most blatant pre-election politics?

Mr. Lang: We are not contemplating taking away from workers the right to strike. The hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood the position. I have already answered the point about lawyers. If we had produced a White Paper or legislation, the Opposition would have been the first to complain that we had not first produced a Green Paper. We have produced a Green Paper before every industrial relations reform measure, in order to consult on it and proceed by consensus. The people who do not form part of that consensus are those in the Labour party, because they are in the pay of the trade union movement.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I first apologise to my right hon. Friend for being so eager to get in that I leaped up before I should have? Does he agree that the very fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the proposals had been published with an election in view proves that he knows that they will be extremely popular? The Post Office strike has done more to undermine the public's belief in the Post Office than anything that anyone else could have done; it was a disaster that should never be repeated.

Mr. Lang: I welcome my hon. Friend's introductory remarks. She is right to say that, if we do not legislate before the general election, we shall have no hesitation whatever in inviting the electorate to endorse the proposals. The mail strike was one more example of how public monopoly services are the most prone to strikes these days; they now account for 70 per cent. of industrial action, whereas the figure was previously 10 per cent. That is a measure of how the private sector has come to its senses, and we must ensure that the public monopoly services do the same.

Mr. John Evans: Is it not ironic that the party that will not allow its members to elect either its chairman or its national executive committee is trying to introduce the most draconian conditions imposed on any trade union movement in Europe? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if immunities are lifted from trade unions in the circumstances that he has outlined, it will take the trade union movement back to where it was before the 1906 Taff Vale judgment?

Mr. Lang: The trade union movement has made great advances in the past 17 years; at long last, it has a framework of law and a democratic base on which to conduct its affairs honourably and properly. As for the proposals being draconian, I should point out that Britain has much less protection than other countries against strikes in essential services; there are far more robust measures in Germany, Belgium, France and Japan than are proposed in the Green Paper.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unions and their leaders and members have, in competitive industries, combined and co-operated with employers to bring in more inward investment and

to raise productivity? Does he accept that it is right to concentrate on the monopoly industries? He seems to have found an elegant way forward in that respect.
May I warn my right hon. Friend that the words "at this time" in paragraph 3.6 of the Green Paper, the health and safety proposal, would be strongly opposed by employers and by many Conservatives, who believe that the right of union and employee representatives to information on health and safety issues is one of the reasons why our health and safety record is so much better than that of most other European countries?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to the consultation process, which will no doubt yield comments on that point. He is right to focus on the importance of good industrial relations in attracting inward investment. It is surely no accident that, while strikes in the manufacturing sector have fallen by 99 per cent. since the Government came into office, productivity in that sector has increased by more than 70 per cent., and in consequence we have attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report of Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe on the causes of the underground strike in the summer? One headline said: "Our mistakes led to strikes, say Tube chiefs". The report stated:
Communication within the company is weak. In particular and at all levels, constructive discussion and resolution of relevant business, performance and behavioural issues is often either absent or ineffective.
As a result, issues do not get adequately addressed and problems fester and grow.
How, then, can the public bring an action against management for disproportionate or excessive damage to their interest? Should not the Secretary of State consider proper penalties for employers who are not prepared to discuss matters with their employees or to recognise trade unions, and accept that their Victorian attitudes cause disproportionate damage to the long-suffering British public?

Mr. Lang: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument for privatisation. It has been most noticeable that the management of the public sector organisations has improved dramatically after privatisation. The hon. Gentleman asked about the public suing management. Management does not enjoy the civil immunities that trade unions enjoy. It is those civil immunities that are addressed by our proposal on disproportionate and excessive effects.

Sir David Madel: As a growing number of welcome no-strike deals are being voluntarily entered into, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention in the consultation process to what should happen when trade union leaders persistently recommend no strike but unofficial action takes place? We need to get that right. Is the new commissioner not to intervene in a dispute until ACAS has exhausted its efforts for a settlement?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's first point will certainly be taken into account in considering industrial relations matters. It is not addressed by the "disproportionate and


excessive effects" proposal in the Green Paper, but should be further considered. The Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action can provide assistance to an individual if unlawful action is likely to deprive that person of goods or services. He can help that individual to seek an injunction either to prevent the action or to get it called off.
In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Brightside, which I omitted to answer in my initial response, the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action dealt with 684 inquiries in 1995–96. The commissioner is the same person as the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, a statutory officer who has assisted, inter alia, the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) in her dispute with the Civil and Public Servants Association.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while we must always try to balance the rights of employees and the interests of the community and of employers, there is a real danger that we could deny the legitimate expression of grievance? What protection does he propose to introduce to protect the legitimate rights of employees?

Mr. Lang: We have no proposals whatever to inhibit the legitimate expression of rights by employees. We propose that, when a union is contemplating industrial action, it will have to consider the effects of that action on the public. Too often in the past the public have been the innocent victims of industrial disputes. Now we are insisting that they are brought into the equation, and that they have rights that unions must take into account before deciding to embark on industrial action.

Mr. David Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes are an outdated method of settling industrial disputes? Does he also agree that strikes in essential services such as those on the underground and in the Post Office are, in effect, a blackmail of the community, and are unacceptable to civilised society?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the view that he has expressed is held by the great majority of the British people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not nothing short of sheer hypocrisy for the Government to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to talk about the bravery of the firefighters in Kent, the train drivers and others in the public services who saved lives, and then, about half an hour later, another tinpot Minister attacks those very same people, because, very rarely, they have the audacity to tell their Tory bosses, "Enough is enough," and threaten industrial action?
Let me remind the Secretary of State that the last Tory Prime Minister who went to a general election on the question, "Who rules Britain?"—he has just left the Chamber—failed, of course, to win. People can see this for what it is—an election gimmick. If the Secretary of State wants to deal in a fair society, he should remember that it takes two to cause a strike. It is not just employees. On many occasions, bosses deliberately cause strikes,

against the background of mass unemployment. The Government have encouraged that throughout their 17 years. Thank God they are on the way out.

Mr. Lang: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that before the 1992 election, the 1987 election and the 1983 election. We shall see. As for putting people at risk, I wonder what his view is about the strike called by Derbyshire fire services against Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. Our proposals would bring the public into the equation and give them the right to take action if they were put at risk as a result of the action of Derbyshire fire services.

Mr. Skinner: I was negotiating a settlement; I was ACAS.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Was it not somewhat inconsistent of the Communication Workers Union to seek to punish the public by the withdrawal of their mail, having argued that the Post Office should not be privatised because it should remain a public service? Is there any relation between the fact that there have been strikes in the Post Office but not in British Telecom, and the fact that one is privatised and the other is not?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The introduction of competition and the breaking of monopolies is one way to undermine such attitudes that hold the public to ransom. Clearly we must do more on the privatisation front.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As trade unionists are consumers and consumers may well be trade unionists, are we not unnecessarily polarising the issue? Is it not the case that people may be deprived of goods and services by industrial action that is proportionate and not excessive? Is it not a matter of judgment as to which actions may be excessive? Individuals will have different interpretations, which are bound to lead to a plethora of cases being brought before the courts. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to limit the number of cases that may be repetitive or vexatious?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right—it is a matter of judgment. Individuals and organisations that seek to take action will need to judge whether they have suffered disproportionate or excessive effects. Before calling a strike, the trade unions will need to decide whether the effects of that strike on the public, industry or the community at large might be disproportionate or excessive.
We are setting out criteria in the Green Paper to give guidance on the matter. We are consulting on it, and we shall develop the proposals further. However, the underlying principle is clear: where disproportionate and excessive effects take place, the immunity of the trade union is, and rightly should be, forfeit.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome that the Green Paper will get from London Underground commuters and the customers of the Post Office, who would say "sooner rather than later" of legislation? Does he remember how the strikes on the underground and in the postal service


embarrassed the Leader of the Opposition this summer? Yet this afternoon, we have heard the authentic voice of old Labour.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. We on Conservative Benches are the commuters' friend—the Labour party is the strikers' friend.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is not the statement by the Secretary of State in complete contradiction to the remarks made by the Prime Minister during Question Time today? He was boasting about the tranquillity of the relationship with trade unions. The Secretary of State has contradicted those boasts about how well everything is going.
The Secretary of State mentions the days lost through strikes, but how about the days—a hundred times as many—lost through unemployment? What about cowboy employers—are they to have no responsibility? They are not included in the document. This announcement shows that this is a fag-end Government, who think that they are on to some sort of gimmick—but they will lose the general election.

Mr. Lang: It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that, for the past four years, while industrial action in this country has been reduced, unemployment has been falling. We are addressing the rise in industrial action in August this year and the preceding months, which reversed that trend, and in which action was focused on public sector services. That is where the public suffer most, and we are proposing this action so as to bring the public's rights into the equation.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I give a wholehearted welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and his Green Paper on behalf of the beleaguered commuters and small businesses of my constituency. When taking representations on his Green Paper, will he reflect on the fact that, if we had accepted at face value representations from people such as Labour Members and trade unions—who will no doubt beseige his office with all sorts of false representations—we would have got nowhere over the past 17 years, and would still be stuck with the awful industrial relations record we inherited from the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the industrial indicators point to the success of our industrial relations policy—improved productivity, attraction of huge inward investment, falling unemployment and all the other measures of industrial success. Unless we address the remaining specific problem of industrial action in the monopoly public sector industries, we shall continue to suffer from the growth and recovery in industrial action that will damage those successes.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is there any strike that the Secretary of State would support?

Mr. Lang: I believe that strikes should be the weapon of last resort, not of first resort. Through a series of

step-by-step proposals, this Government have achieved great things in industrial relations; we now intend to take another positive step in that direction.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In the entire history of British industrial relations, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any occasion on which he found the management at fault?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady was clearly not listening to my earlier answer on that subject. Management does not enjoy immunity to civil lawsuits as trade unions do. It is open to anyone to take out a lawsuit against management if it is believed to be responsible. We are concerned with the fact that trade unions, while sheltering behind immunity from civil actions, make decisions that do not take proper account of the damage they inflict on the public.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State recall that it was Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative Prime Minister, who said in reference to the Taff Vale decision—the last time that immunity was removed from industrial action—that Conservatives need not complain about the class war, because they started it? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that no one outside the House will be fooled by his talk of protecting innocent third parties, but will see his proposals for what they are—a naked class attack on the workers of this country?

Mr. Lang: I think that they will see the hon. Gentleman and his party as standing for the past, while industrial relations have made great strides forward in the past 17 years. I invite him to address the gains that have been achieved, not only for the country as a whole, but for trade union members themselves, as a result of the measures that we have introduced.

Mr. David Winnick: Does not the truth in this trade union-bashing document lie at the top of page 17, where it is made clear that the Government are totally opposed to trade unionism? Is it any surprise that the Government want to return to the industrial climate of the years before 1906, with no immunities for trade unions, sweatshops, miserable wages and no effective protection for working people? It is not trade unions that are the enemy within in Britain today—it is this wretched Government, who are the dedicated enemy of every working person in this country.

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me why we have a higher proportion of our working-age population in employment in this country than any other comparable country in Europe, and why they enjoy better living standards than ever they did under a Labour Government.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: A quiet question of fact: what legal advice has the Department had on how the courts would interpret the word "disproportionate"?

Mr. Lang: Advice within Government is, of course, private to Government, but we are confident that these proposals are workable and will be effective; that, given


the criteria and the guidance that will be included in the legislation, they will work effectively; and that the courts will responsible positively to them.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Have we not seen another general election ploy here, whereby the Tories set out to clobber the unions and clobber the working people of this country? How many times have we heard from Conservative Members that they do not want the minimum wage or the 48-hour directive? They do not want anything—they do not want the workers to get anything at all. The Green Paper proves that all they want to do is to keep the working people of this country down at the bottom. Some Conservative Members could not live on what some of my members are making in my constituency. I would like to see some of the Ministers live a month on some of the wages that my constituents have to live on.

Mr. Lang: What we want is a successful, expanding economy, creating new, prosperous, well-paid jobs.

Mr. Campbell: You have not got one.

Mr. Lang: That is our record of achievement, and we are determined to uphold that record.

Mr. Campbell: We are a low-paid economy; that is what you have got.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He had an opportunity to put a question. I did not hear a question from him, as a matter of fact.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Who were the authors of this document? Paragraph 1.16 on page 6 claims that many strikes
are called before negotiation and other means of resolving disputes have been fully explored.
That is patently untrue.
Is it not the case that many strikes or industrial disputes are provoked by over-powerful and inefficient management, rather than militant trade union representatives? Was that not the case in the ScotRail disputes that the Secretary of State mentioned, and the Post Office dispute? Why, in the interests of balance, does he not seek to protect the interests and needs of employees against over-powerful employers?

Mr. Lang: In the private sector, the quality of employers and management has improved beyond recognition in recent years. As for the ScotRail dispute, 21 of the 22 train operating companies have reached a settlement on that dispute; only in ScotRail are the trade unions holding out and threatening to paralyse Scottish rail travel for five days in pursuit of an industrial dispute. I urge them to do what the other 21 companies have done—sit down and negotiate a settlement, and not put the public at risk.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I thank the Secretary of State for taking me back about 10 years to a tedious international conference at which I heard the

communist Minister of Labour in Poland explain why the Polish public had to be protected against democratic trade union action. Has he consulted the International Labour Organisation? At least one of his proposals will be in contravention of a convention that Britain has signed.

Mr. Lang: That is highly unlikely, but the consultation period runs for three months, and I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I say that the Minister is going too far? These measures are an affront to liberty. They breach every fundamental principle of freedom of the individual, which many Conservative supporters in the country subscribe to. What he is doing today shows that he has completely misunderstood Conservative supporters in Britain, who feel very strongly on these issues—perhaps in a way that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand.

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand how strongly the public feel on these issues when they are left abandoned by trains whose drivers are on strike, or when they are unable to receive mail because the post is on strike. They too have rights, and those rights should be taken into account.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not reprehensible to make this further attempt to screw the trade unions, when wages are abysmally low and job insecurity is uppermost in people's mind? When will the Government realise that what is needed is not oppression and tyranny, but partnership and co-operation in industry? That is the way ahead for Britain.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and wages. Is he not aware that 150,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone have been created in the past three years? Is he not aware that wages at all levels are higher in real terms by a substantial margin than when his party was in power? There should indeed be partnership, but it should involve the public as well. They have a right to be considered in that partnership.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What does the Minister consider trade unions to be about? Are they not supposed to be involved in negotiating on behalf of their members in various areas of interest? For that they need influence, in order to get their side heard. Their means of last resort, the strike, will be taken away from them in many cases.

Mr. Lang: Too often, what should be the means of last resort is becoming the means of first resort. We are concerned to make the strike the instrument of last resort and to make sure that other factors, such as the public interest, are taken more fully into the equation.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: How can the Minister respond to a 99 per cent. fall in days lost through industrial action by complaining about excessive resort to the strike weapon? Surely the juxtaposition shows that that is simply election propaganda, rather than a proper industrial relations issue.

Mr. Lang: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not hear me point out that strikes in public utility services, which


constituted 10 per cent. of the total 10 years ago, now constitute 70 per cent. of the total. That is where the problem now exists, and that is why we are addressing it.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has the Secretary of State not understood that there are many occasions when working people, through their trade unions, stand up for their rights? Those interests and rights are complementary to those of the public. Is it not a fact that, time and again, health and safety issues affecting workers, which have been pursued with vigour by trade unions, have meant that many accidents have been avoided in our public sector, and where those representations have been ignored, tragedies have come about?
Is it not a fact that the trade unions have been a force for good in promoting the interests not only of the workers but of the general public? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, and explain why it is good to have trade unions in some industries, but why he defends the right of some miserly, mean employers to exclude trade unions where it suits their selfish interests and not those of their competitors?

Mr. Lang: What a long and complicated question. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that health and safety considerations are high on our list of priorities and constitute one of the criteria set out in the Green Paper that should be taken into account in assessing whether a strike is disproportionate or excessive. Strikes are far more likely to damage the health and safety of the public—and, indeed, of workers—than they are likely to advance it.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State could answer one simple question. In view of our overall concern for the user and consumer of services, does the legal advice that he has taken suggest that the London Underground dispute this summer would have met the definition of "disproportionate" or "excessive" in terms of its effects?

Mr. Lang: If these proposals had been in place at that time, my guess is that that strike would not have taken place.

Points of Order

Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the Prime Minister's challenge to the comments made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I ask whether such a challenge was justified, bearing it in mind that early-day motion 93 tabled on 29 October was on record in the House, showing that every elected representative in Northern Ireland opposed the proposals to reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three.

Madam Speaker: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman got excited when the Prime Minister gave his answer during Question Time. However, the matter he raises with me now is not a point of order but a point of argument, and I may accept only points of order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the significant point of principle as to whether hon. Members should be allowed to have their say before British troops are irrevocably committed to a dangerous situation, has the Secretary of State for Defence disclosed to you when he wishes to report to the House on the factual findings of Brigadier Jonathan Thompson and his reconnaissance team? He should report to the House so that he may hear hon. Members' comments on the subject before the Cabinet decides irrevocably to commit British forces to Zaire.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Secretary of State for Defence, or any other Secretary of State, is seeking to make a statement about Zaire today. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments yesterday, which I still have very much in mind.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall not point out that the Tories ran out of questioners halfway through the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. Did you notice that the Labour spokesman was joined by the spokesmen from the Scottish National party, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the Liberal Democrats in opposing the statement? Is there any way of putting that fact on record?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue questions on the statement. He should have caught my eye at the appropriate time rather than seeking to use points of order in that way.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

(Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and any new Clauses and Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 15th November which relate to the prohibition of small firearms or to further special exemptions from the general prohibition of small firearms.)

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 18 November].

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

SLAUGHTERING INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Clause 2 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell, or transfer a slaughtering instrument if he is duly authorised by a firearms certificate. The Secretary of State's authority will not be required for a person to have a slaughtering instrument in his possession if he is already entitled, under section 10 of the 1968 Act, to possess it without a firearms certificate. That will allow a slaughterman licensed under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 or the proprietor of an abattoir to continue using a slaughtering instrument as part of his normal duties.
For many years, the firearms Acts have exempted licensed professional slaughterers from the need to hold certificates and we propose that that should be allowed to continue. The instruments that they use—many of which have a captive bolt—pose no threat to the protection of the public. We believe that in those cases it is right to allow the chief officer of police the discretion to grant section 1 certificates to such people. He will be able to assess each case on its merits.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) is the Government Whip on duty, it seems appropriate to ask about starting pistols used at athletics meetings. There are all sorts of anomalies; will that one be covered?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of the Committee's discussions. The issue of starting pistols will be debated under one of the clauses—I think it is clause 4—that we shall discuss this afternoon.
We believe that it is right that the chief officer should be able to assess each case on its merits and that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require people in this category to obtain the Secretary of State's separate authority.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: It is essential that such people are able to possess and use the appropriate instruments, and we support the special

exemption. As to bureaucracy, it seems a little elaborate to include two clauses—clauses 2 and 3—that appear to say the same thing. Perhaps my hon. Friend might consider tidying up the legislation on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

FIREARMS USED FOR HUMANE KILLING OF ANIMALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Clause 3 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm held on a firearms certificate that is subject to a condition that it is to be used only for the humane killing of animals. That would cover not only vets and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals officials but others, including hunt servants, whom the chief constable is satisfied have a genuine need for a handgun for that purpose. That may involve producing evidence to prove that need.
Vets and others have long used handguns for the humane killing of animals, and it would be wrong to expect or require them to change their practices. We accepted the argument that the alternatives available, such as rifles, shotguns and tranquilliser darts, would not be as effective. The advantages of using pistols to put animals out of their misery are obvious. The circumstances of the exemption are clear and only professionals or other experienced persons will be able to prove their need to the chief officer.
We believe that in those cases it is right that the chief officer of police should have the discretion to grant section 1 certificates and that each case should be assessed on its merits. We believe that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require such people to obtain the Secretary of State's separate authority.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the exemption have the agreement—which seems to be implied—of the British Veterinary Association? Has that group been consulted and has it agreed to the exemption?

Miss Widdecombe: The organisation has made its views known and it is beyond me why it would not agree to our proposal, given that vets clearly must be exempt.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

RACES AT ATHLETIC MEETINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Clause 4 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm that is held on a firearms certificate with the condition that it is to be


used only for starting races at athletic meetings. The clause also provides that a person other than a certificate holder, such as a race official, may possess a firearm at an athletic meeting in order to start races.
Most starting pistols—for example, those commonly used at school sports days—do not have an open barrel and are simply designed to make a bang. They are not classed as firearms and the legislation would not affect them. According to the British Athletics Federation, major athletics events require starting guns that are classed as firearms. For technical reasons, starters require a gun that can produce a very loud bang and a highly visible flash from the muzzle. Special blank ammunition is used for that purpose. The visible flash is required to notify the manual timekeepers who are required to act as a back-up in case the electronic systems fail.
Such accurate timekeeping is essential only for races where international, national or regional records will be set and such records are recognised only when a BAF starter is present. We understand that a .22 pistol would not be suitable for that task as it would not produce either a bright enough flash or a loud enough bang. A firearms certificate for a starting gun will not allow the possession of live ammunition as race starters require only blank rounds.
We believe that it is right that the chief officer of police should have the discretion to assess each case on its, merits and that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to do it any other way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

TROPHIES OF WAR

Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37, after `possession', insert
'and if the firearm is deactivated or disabled from firing in a prescribed manner'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 37, at end add—
`(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument.'.

Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Sir Michael—

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I am Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Henderson: I apologise to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your correction.
Clause 5 exempts from the provisions of the Bill trophies of war that were acquired before 1946, which have been authorised by certificate.
When I first read clause 5, I assumed that it related to what would probably be described by a layperson as an antique gun—a gun that would not be very usable nowadays, and one that had been acquired over time. I have discovered that that is not so and that many guns

that are trophies of war are essentially the same in design as guns that are manufactured today and have the same lethal powers.
I do not believe that there is any great risk from many of the holders of such trophies of war. Most of them are very responsible people and they retain such weapons to remind them of the past and of their family's contribution to war efforts. The danger is that such weapons might fall into the wrong hands and that ammunition might then be provided from another source, thus turning them into lethal weapons.
When hon. Members agree that something must be done quickly, there is a sometimes the temptation to ignore detail. We can all be guilty of that, but I hope that the Government will acknowledge that potential danger. If they do not accept the wording of our amendments, perhaps they will consider another form of words that would take on board the points that I have made.
The definition of a trophy of war is not particularly tight. I quote from Home Office guidelines, "Firearms Law: Evidence to the Police", which say:
All persons retaining trophies of war must hold firearm certificates, although no fee is payable,"—
and we all understand that.
In general, the term 'trophy' may be interpreted fairly widely when persons of good repute wish to retain possession of a firearm as a personal memento without the ammunition necessary for its use … Weapons issued or captured during the 1939–1945 war and subsequently are Government property and their retention is not permitted.
We are not talking about legally held trophies of war from the 1939–45 war. I am told by the police that it is possible that many equivalents to trophies of war obtained by individuals have been given certificates that apply to guns manufactured between 1939 and 1946. Either a blind eye has been turned by the Ministry of Defence or the police were told originally that the gun was manufactured before 1939. I am told that many of them were manufactured between 1939 and 1945, often in Europe and often brought back as a memento of various campaigns during the second world war.
Other trophies of war manufactured before 1939 are legitimately held. I quote from Jane's Infantry Weapons, which says that the 9 mm Browning high-power pistol, which was the same gun used by Hamilton at Dunblane
was designed in 1925 by John M. Browning and granted a US Patent in February 1927.
The High Power has been manufactured"—
on licence—
in Belgium by F. N. Herstal SA, near Liège.
It was in service in Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Netherlands and Romania.
It has been used since and is still in production in India. As we all know, it is a lethal weapon. I believe that if it got into the wrong hands it could still be used by a maniac such as Hamilton to cause destruction and devastation in a community. The Government must address that possibility.
Another gun that is common as a trophy of war-again it was manufactured before 1939 but was still in production up until 1985—is the .45 model 1911.A1 automatic pistol. It is a classic pistol used by the US army. Essentially, the design has remained the same. It would take a firearms expert to draw a distinction between one


of the models made pre-1939 and one made after that date. The point that I am trying to make is that guns are available—this relates to guns above .22 calibre—that are not antiques but are lethal weapons and are more or less the same as guns that are available today, and have been rightly classified as trophies of war. These potential weapons are not covered by clause 5. I hope that the Government will accept that there needs to be some way of ensuring that such guns are not used for purposes for which they were not intended.
It would be wrong to have a general policy of deactivating guns, for all the arguments that were exchanged across the Floor in yesterday's debate. If guns were to be dismantled, it would be too easy for a part kept in one place to be associated with another part kept elsewhere. In relation to trophies of war, however, because we are talking about a relatively small number of guns, it would be possible to make them safe by deactivating them. That should be done without causing damage to the gun. I hope that the Government will look at ways in which that could be achieved.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The whole world of guns, weapons and collectors would be absolutely delighted if there was any way of knowing how to deactivate a gun without damaging it, as that would be a solution to many problems.

Mr. Henderson: I hope that it will be possible to examine that. Lord Cullen suggested, in paragraph 9.94 of his report, that one area for discussion might be a barrel lock system. I am no gun expert and I do not know whether it would be possible to use such a device to deactivate a gun safely and without damaging it, but the House has an obligation to not only the people of Dunblane but the people of this country to take every step to ensure that legally held guns do not get into the wrong hands. I have mentioned a potential loophole; I hope that the Government will accept that it exists. It affects only a small number of people, but we must deal with it. The danger is not from the holders of trophies of war but that those trophies of war may get into the wrong hands and be used for purposes for which they were not intended.
I ask the Government to accept the point that I have made. If they accept the Opposition's amendments, that would be satisfactory. If they believe that our amendments are technically flawed, I should be happy to co-operate with them in finding another way to address the problem.

5 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The effect of the amendment is abundantly clear and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has explained lucidly what is in his mind. If he adopts the view that there shall be no dangerous handguns that could be fired if the right ammunition was obtained illegally, I understand his point of view. But we are talking about weapons that are held for some historic, personal or domestic reason.
Next Sunday, I shall be attending the 100th birthday party of Corporal D'Arcy Jones, who will celebrate his birthday today week. On 8 November 1917, Corporal Jones took part in the last mounted cavalry charge to capture guns at a place called Huj near Beersheba.

My father led that charge. The casualties were 50 per cent. and of the nine officers four were killed and two were wounded. I think that the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was either present or a member of the regiment at the time. It was a famous historic action during which 20,000 Turks took to their heels and fled down the hill. I know that the revolver of one of the officers who took part in that historic charge is in private ownership. It would be a great tragedy if, even though that weapon is kept in the greatest security, its firing pin had to be sawn off and a bolt put down the barrel, or whatever was required.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North will learn much more about firearms as the Bill progresses. One of the difficulties of deactivation is that previously nefarious individuals have de-deactivated weapons. In other words, firing pins have been restored and barrels drilled out, putting the weapons back in order. Deactivation is usually certificated by the proof house and it is a monumental destruction of the item. I am talking not just about historic pieces, but about works of art, which can be used. It would be a great tragedy if they had to be deactivated to the satisfaction of the proof house.

Mr. Henderson: I was referring to relatively modern guns, principally those manufactured in the 20th century. Older guns could be classified under the Firearms Act 1968 as antiques and so would not be covered by the Bill.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: With the right ammunition, unless it has been neglected, anything manufactured in the 20th century is likely to be a pretty useful piece of equipment to anyone who wishes to use it in that way. It is no good arguing against that. It is a fact of life that everyone accepts.
As far as I know, this matter has not upset chief constables or caused any difficulty. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us if it has. The effect of deactivating guns is to destroy their commercial value. It also destroys the romantic, historic and emotional connection. I realise that there are those who cannot understand why anyone would feel that for a gun, but people do. As it stands, the law is completely satisfactory. The guns are held without permission for ammunition and without any intention to use them. The law already covers the point and I hope that my hon. Friend will reject the amendment.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: How many guns are held under licence as trophies of war? Such information would give us some insight into whether a problem exists. Is it correct that a person with a certificate authorising the possession of such a weapon cannot use that weapon as a firearm? That would be an argument in favour of deactivating it.
I understand what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has just said and the various reasons that he gave. However, we must consider the amendment seriously. It is correct and proper that there should be exceptions to a law. Nothing can be absolute. But we should always be circumspect in establishing such exceptions, because the more there are, the more difficult is the law to understand and the easier it is to circumvent it because there are more loopholes, bringing the law into disrepute. Therefore, we should try to restrict the exemptions.
We could not possibly disagree with the first three exemptions, but I am not so sure about the exemption for a trophy of war, unless it is deactivated. We need not consider the problems with deactivation that we debated yesterday, and temporary deactivation, allowing a gun to be put back together and used. We are now considering permanent deactivation. There must be methods of doing that that do not significantly damage the gun, other than making it impossible to use it again. Reactivating guns is a specialty, but that is another hurdle to be gone through before anyone can use such a weapon in a criminal act.
This is an area for concern and I would be grateful if the Minister would provide the information for which I have asked and consider the points that I have made.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: We understand that, in a number of instances, the attraction in retaining a trophy of war is the fact that, with the right information, one could shoot someone with it. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said that people such as me who are not part of the gun fraternity would not understand that part of the attraction of having a trophy of war is to be able to fantasise about loading it, taking it out and shooting at something or other.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: indicated dissent.

Mr. O'Neill: That was the point that the hon. Gentleman made, which he suggested we could not understand. Part of the attraction of a trophy of war is that, with the right ammunition, such a gun could be used. That is what the hon. Gentleman was saying and that was part of the argument that he advanced against deactivation.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have known the hon. Gentleman a long time and I know that he has a fanciful imagination and turn of phrase, but I must refute what he says What I said is on the record and he can read it. I said that a fine weapon is valued for its workmanship and, in this instance, for its history and its romantic attachment, whether that be the result of a gallant action, some war story in which it played a part, or whatever. That is what I said and it is on the record.

Mr. O'Neill: We may have to judge it on the record. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, (Mr. Henderson) not being a member of the gun fraternity, might not understand the attraction of a weapon and its lack of attraction if it was somehow artificially deactivated.
Is the Minister satisfied that such weapons will be held securely in the home of the licence holder? Let us not forget that a collector of armaments will probably be known within his area and could be a magnet to burglars, especially if it was understood that some of the weapons could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has already said, be used quickly.
What is important is not just whether such weapons should be deactivated or whether that is desirable or possible, but the conditions under which they are held by the appropriate people. I can well imagine that if anyone is to be entrusted with such weapons, their owners are the

kind of people who should be, but what worries me is those in the community who see them as a potential for burglary and theft.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be too much of a pedant, but anyone who acquired weapons before 1 January 1946 is likely to have done three score years and ten. Does the clause refer to weapons acquired by dad, grandad or great grandad? Perhaps some other wording should cover this.
I make no apology for returning to the issue of money. I am a little wiser than I was yesterday afternoon. I asked some questions in yesterday's debate, as a result of which a dealer got in touch with me and told me that many such weapons are enormously valuable. If they are surrendered at anything like market price, the figures involved could be many thousands of pounds.
For technical reasons and for reasons of history, some trophies of war are extremely expensive. If owners were unwilling to have them unlocked and debilitated in some way or another, they would presumably have to surrender them. If so, what compensation would be paid?

Sir Cranley Onslow: I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The clause refers to the acquisition of a trophy of war before a certain date. That implies that when the individual who acquired it has left this world, title passes away entirely, and is not inheritable under the terms of the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate. I have to say at the outset of my speech that, sadly, I must urge the House to resist the amendments if they are pressed.
Before I deal with the main part of the amendments and reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I shall pick up various important points that were made in the debate. I am sure that, no matter what view one takes of the Bill, the House will want to congratulate Corporal D'Arcy Jones on his 100th birthday. We wish him a happy birthday and hope that it is a wonderful occasion.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) raised an important point about inheritance. As the Bill is currently phrased, it does not provide for inheritance. However, we intend to table an amendment at a later stage, which will enable the heirs of people who have held trophies of war likewise to be exempt. As we propose to exempt both owners of trophies of war and their heirs, the issue of compensation does not arise. I hope that the hon. Members are reassured on that.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised a relevant and important point. He is right that it is not merely the conditions in which such weapons are possessed that is important—I shall deal with that matter in a moment—but the security under which they are held. The police already have the power to specify the conditions under which a person is allowed to hold such guns. Clearly, an ancient weapon that is kept in a box in an attic by a widow does not cause the same concerns as a more modern weapon that is capable of being fired and is kept in more overt conditions in a house. The police can take account of particular circumstances and can specify conditions. They already have that power—we are not giving it to them in the Bill. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked several questions. In particular, he asked whether I could put a figure on the number of guns that we propose to exempt. The figures are not centrally collected, but they are known by individual police forces and can be obtained from them for a given area. As far as we are aware, no chief police officer has ever notified us of any problems involving such guns.
I regret that I cannot support the amendments for two reasons. First, deactivation is a red herring. For a gun to be classified as deactivated, extremely strict standards must be applied. It is not enough for bits and pieces to be temporarily removed: the gun must be permanently deactivated. A permanently deactivated gun is not caught by the firearms Acts, so would be irrelevant. A specification to exempt deactivated guns would be utterly redundant. It would have no meaning under the terms of the firearms Acts.
We do not want to introduce as a condition the requirement to disable. I say that, but it is already possible for the police to specify that dismantling or partial dismantling must occur as a condition of the gun being held. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North should consult the report of the debate on 12 November, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that he has two world war one handguns, and that he keeps them dismantled at the police's request.
Under current legislation, the police are able to specify that a weapon must be dismantled. That often depends on the same issues that are raised when considering whether guns are being kept securely—how old the guns are, whether they are capable of being fired, who is keeping them and under what conditions and whether dismantling would be sensible. I believe that it is better to leave those matters to the police. If the amendments are pressed—I hope that they will not be—I urge the Committee to resist them.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Before my hon. Friend finishes her speech, may I return to the subject of trophies of war? When she mentioned the concession that heirs will be allowed to keep such guns, everyone nodded and thought that it was a good idea. But if we thought about it, we would realise that it could lead to logically absurd situations. Presumably, I could keep my father's gun or my grandfather's. Could I keep my great uncle's gun? Could my great uncle will his gun to someone else? Why should people be allowed to keep trophies of war that have been left to them in a will, whereas other people will not be allowed to do so? If the Home Office makes concessions on what is an intrusive and confiscatory measure, it will soon get into deep water. That is the problem with this sort of legislation.

Miss Widdecombe: I could almost be forgiven for thinking that my hon. Friend was arguing against the concession. What I said was crystal clear: I said that the heirs would be exempt—not the sons, grandsons or great grandsons. A great nephew or a third cousin six times removed could be an heir. When we introduce our amendment, we will make our intentions clear. It is a trifle

unfair for my hon. Friend to criticise the concession, as he does not yet have the details of it. I have given him an idea of my general thinking.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall be more than a trifle unfair, because I think that there are other problems with the magic date of 1946. What about trophies of the Korean war? To my certain knowledge, some of my national service contemporaries brought trophies back from the Korean war. God knows what has happened to them. Has the date of 1946 been plucked out of the air?

Miss Widdecombe: We must have a definition. When we introduce our amendment on trophies of war, hon. Members will have an opportunity to propose other amendments. There was a proposal to tighten the definition and to change the date to 1939. We shall carefully consider whether the definition is consistent with and coherent across different legislation, and whether it is right.

Mr. Dalyell: This is quite important. Presumably, certificates would have to be produced for possession of a gun acquired before 1946. What about trophies of war that were acquired back in the late 1940s and 1950s? We are going back a very long way. What standards of proof will be expected? I do not want to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but I believe that the provision is fraught with difficulties.

Mr. Henderson: I did not really understand the Minister's point about deactivated guns. It is a bit like asking, "When is a gun not a gun?" It was suggested that a gun that was fully operational at one time could be in a different state as a trophy of war. We all acknowledge that a "trophy of war" licence would not be given for such a gun to be used with ammunition, but there is still a danger that it could fall into the wrong hands and then be loaded with ammunition. That is particularly likely in the case of the relatively modern guns that I mentioned earlier. I do not think that deactivating a gun of that kind means that it is no longer a gun: it could be reactivated.

Miss Widdecombe: No.

Mr. Henderson: I think that it could, but that is a technical point.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some technical advice. As I said, deactivation is now extremely strictly prescribed. It would be much easier to build a gun from scratch than to try to reactivate a gun that had been deactivated according to current specifications. The meaning is pretty precise. In any event, deactivated guns fall outwith the terms of the Bill, and we would be talking about nothing if we wrote them in.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for the Minister's advice, but I am not sure that it convinces me. Common sense tells me that if something can be deactivated, it can be reactivated. Many engineers would welcome the challenge of reactivating a gun and returning it to the condition in which it was when it was manufactured and first in use.
I think that the Minister is saying that she agrees that there is a potential loophole—that she recognises that, in some circumstances, some trophies of war could become dangerous to the public. In recognising that, she has acknowledged that sometimes the police will have to say, "Your trophy of war must be kept in a particular circumstance before it can be given an appropriate licence." If the Minister recognises that, she should seriously consider saying it in the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Primary legislation already states that the police can specify the circumstances in which guns must be kept, either in terms of their physical condition—which means dismantling—or in terms of the secure conditions that surround their keeping. The decision is made on the merits of each case. There would be little point in trying to introduce blanket legislation affecting a number of circumstances to which the application was not appropriate.

Mr. Henderson: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her advice, but this advice does not convince me either. There is a need to be specific. The Government must think again, and for that reason I may not press the amendment.
We should recall the position in which the police found themselves in central Scotland when they believed that, under the existing law, they would fail in court if Hamilton challenged their decision to deny him a certificate. We could be in the same position in this instance. Someone who held a trophy of war and believed that the law did not give the chief constable powers to be specific and to make a particular requirement could challenge the chief constable if he thought that the cost would be disproportionate.

Miss Widdecombe: Although this Bill does not make that specific, the existing law does. There would be no ground for such a challenge.

Mr. Henderson: I understand the point on which the Minister is attempting to convince the Committee, but she has not convinced me, and I am not sure that she has convinced the Committee. She has accepted that there is a loophole. I hope that, in the light of this discussion and the confusion that exists in the minds of hon. Members—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members are confused. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) looks very confused. We need clarification.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister find out from the Scottish Office precisely what the state of the law is? In 1988, Thomas Hamilton came to my surgery. His visit was prompted by a constituent, Mrs. Paula Morebay of Linlithgow, who telephoned to say that she was extremely concerned about her son being taken to a camp by a group leader whom she did not like and whom she distrusted. It was so urgent that I asked the police to go and see my constituent. Detective-Sergeant Anderson then went to see Hamilton.
The police reported that they would have liked to do something about the matter, but could not. That is the story that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others learned 10 years later, and it constitutes the guts of the issue. The man Hamilton

came to my surgery and to my house. We would dearly have liked the police to do something about it, but they did not have the power—or thought that they did not.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's supportive emphasis of what I consider to be a real point. I hope that the Minister will accept that some Conservative Members are also confused, and, having reflected on the issues that we have discussed, will table an amendment. If she does not, it is possible that, after further consultation, I shall want to do so.

Miss Widdecombe: The minds of Conservative Members are models of clarity and lucidity. We are not confused. I cannot speak for Opposition Members, but I do not think that there is any confusion on Conservative Benches about the current provisions in the law. The hon. Member for Linlithgow did exhibit some confusion, but, to be fair, he had been absent for part of the discussion.

Mr. Dalyell: No, I had not.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was at the other end of the Chamber.
Two pieces of law were discussed. The hon. Gentleman raised one: the conditions for licensing, which, as he well knows, we are tightening. The piece of law that I was discussing was that which allows the police to specify the circumstances in which a gun may be kept, in terms of either its physical state or the security provisions surrounding it. I do not think that I can say anything further to dispel the confusion, if indeed it exists.
I will, however, clarify a few points for the hon. Gentleman. I said that we would reflect on these. As all weapons taken in war since 1946 are deemed to be the property of Her Majesty's Government, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised will probably not have as much impact as he may have thought; but I undertake to examine the position, and make certain that that is the case. He also mentioned guns that were purchased a long time ago, standards of proof and so forth. Certificates are renewed every five years, and the same tests are applied on each occasion.

Mr. Leigh: I wish to make just one point. It is clear in my mind now that the law is itself quite clear: anyone can be made an heir, and therefore anyone can sell any trophy of war to whoever he likes by signing a simple affidavit. The gun will then come on to the open market. Trophies of war will be kept on the open market, and will be specific items for sale and resale. [Interruption.] If that is not the case, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me.

Miss Widdecombe: We are talking about wills and inheritance, not about deeds of gift. Wills are provable; wills are held; wills can be referred to.

Mr. Henderson: I think that there is now adequate evidence of confusion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, to enable the whole House perhaps to return to the issue on another occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3

SHOT PISTOLS

'.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a shot pistol if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire such a firearm subject to a condition limiting its use to the destruction of pests, vermin or rabbits.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, however long one studies these complex matters, it is extremely easy to become confused. I know that her clear mind will weave its way through the maze of legislation, but I fully sympathise with the confusion of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). In the next week or two, he will learn a lot not only about the law, but about firearms. If any of the British Shooting Sports Council's experts could offer him assistance, I would be happy to make that available for two reasons: his amendments would be better and it would save everyone much time if they were clear.

Mr. Henderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his colleagues in the said body have already, on a very voluntary basis, given me a significant amount of briefing.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The important thing is to have the right advice and not all that is offered.
To return to the new clause, I confess to not having heard of a shot pistol until a few hours ago, but I understand a few hundred such weapons are kept, usually for the destruction of pests in and around buildings, near pens and in confined spaces where longer and more powerful weapons might be dangerous. If the new clause were to be incorporated, I would not be opening some great door for criminal activity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister might take a sympathetic view of this special class of vermin and rabbit-killing weapon.

Miss Widdecombe: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) to withdraw the new clause. That does not mean that I reject it outright. It means merely that I appreciate and sympathise with what it is intended to achieve, but would welcome the opportunity to consider whether I can draw it more tightly and bring back a more restricted version later in the consideration of the Bill.
A shot pistol is a smooth-bore pistol usually using .410 cartridges and specifically designed, as my hon. Friend has correctly said, for vermin control inside barns

and outbuildings. The relatively low power of small-shot cartridges minimises damage to the fabric of the building. It must be obvious, even to confused Committee members, that it is much easier to use something that scatters shot to a low power in a barn than a shotgun, which could blow away part of the barn as well as the animal. It should also be clear that, where there are many animals, something that scatters shot is better than having to take individual shots. Therefore, we need to consider seriously whether there should be an exemption for shot pistols.
I do not want to exempt all shot pistols from the prohibition in the blanket way that the new clause suggests. The purpose is reasonable. In some circumstances, a shot pistol is obviously the most humane and effective way and, if a good reason can be produced for possession of such a weapon, it can be left to the discretion of the chief officer of police to grant a firearms certificate for that purpose. Therefore, I am prepared to consider a tight exemption to the general prohibition for shot pistols. I want to consider further the best way of achieving that. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will trust me to table a Government amendment, which he will be able to accept or to oppose in due course.

Mr. Henderson: There is something in what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) says. Clearly, there is a need for people in the country and perhaps even in the city to deal with vermin, but I hope that, when the Minister considers this, her proposal will be sufficiently tight to ensure that there is no abuse. One would not want this to be used as a back-door method of retaining Magnums. We all know—even I know—that if people tried to shoot a rabbit with a Magnum, there would be no rabbit left, but, for someone who was involved in target shooting with such a weapon, this would be one way of trying to ensure that he could retain it in future. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when she considers the matter.

Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to give that undertaking. It is precisely because I want to consider how tightly we can draw the new clause, while at the same time honouring the principle behind it, that I am inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare to withdraw it.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: A .410 will never be used for target shooting. It falls under the firearms requirements because of its length. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I can assure I always trust. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5

EXEMPTION FOR COLLECTORS

'.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have possession of any short firearm made before 1st January 1946 if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to hold that firearm as a collector's item and not for use, or if he is a registered firearms dealer.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Let me begin by explaining why I did not move new clause 4. The items in that clause fall better in the category of collectors' items and antiques. The sort of cartridges concerned, few of which still exist, are collectors' items. Few exist because, apparently, they used to go off in people's pocket.
Exemption for collectors is an extremely important part of the legislation. In his speech on Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary conceded that a special case must be made for those items. I recognise that the precise phrasing of new clause 5 is unlikely to satisfy the Government and I do not intend to press it in its detail. It is a vehicle for an explanatory debate so that we can learn a little more about the Government's thinking before, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister tables the appropriate new clauses to deal with the matter.
New clause 5 uses the approach of an amendment created in section 5 of the 1968 Act by the firearms regulations of 1992 in response to the European weapons directive, which says that, subject to important limitations
the authority of the Secretary of State shall not be required by virtue of section 5 of this Act for any person to have in his possession, or to purchase, acquire, transfer, sell or transfer, any prohibited weapon or ammunition if he is authorised by a certificate under this Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon or ammunition subject to the condition that he does so only for the purpose of its being kept or exhibited as part of a collection.
New clause 5, however, is wider as it does not require the collector to have a section 5 or museum certificate.
New clause 5 is also wider in relation to the Home Secretary's suggestion, in particular with regard to pre-1919 guns of 9 mm calibre and handguns manufactured between 1919 and 1939. I shall not quote the Home Secretary in detail, but he made sympathetic noises, based on the fact that those fine weapons have been used, are treasured, loved and cosseted for their workmanship, value and collectability and are fine target guns. He concluded by saying:
Under those proposals, pistols in the relevant categories would be subject to stringent restrictions. Their owners would have a choice. They could keep their guns securely at home on the condition that they were never fired,"—
I assume that no ammunition would be allowed either—
or they could keep and fire them at the national shooting centre at Bisley."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c 186.]
The definitions of collectible weapons and of those that are exempted were dealt with in both the previous Acts. Firearms legislation is a terrible business, as we must constantly refer to the old Acts and the new Bill. Those hon. Members who will serve on the Standing Committee will need to have all those documents in front of them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to our intentions, and can help. Bearing in mind the fact that the Home Secretary has already made a firm statement on the matter, it would be most helpful to those in the trade and the business to know the fine details.

Sir Anthony Durant: I support the new clause. A number of people make the collection of antique guns a close hobby. Indeed, I have a constituent who does that. He collects the guns, but he has no intention of firing them. The guns are very valuable. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already raised the question of costs. Selling the guns will be expensive, as some of them are very, very old.
I understand that the Home Office has received advice from Mr. Davis Penn of the Imperial War museum on what are and what are not antiques, so some formula is available. Even if the wording of the new clause is not exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister wants, I hope that she will take the point that we are trying to make and that the Home Secretary has already conceded. I hope that the sort of people I have described will have the opportunity to continue to pursue the honourable hobby of collecting antique guns.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), I have been approached on the matter of gun collections, not least by the historic arms resource centre at Bisley camp. In addition, great concern has been expressed by those involved in the antiques and museum curators world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter carefully and that the Government will be prepared to table suitable amendments in Standing Committee. It is clear that a number of people are perfectly legitimately involved in the collection of what is, after all, part of our British heritage.
It is important that we all remember what the Bill is intended to achieve—in other words, what mischief it is intended to correct. I felt that I should find out a great deal more about the matter and I was fortunate enough to visit Bisley, as a guest of the National Rifle Association, last weekend—the day before the rally at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) spoke, as many of us saw on national television news. While at Bisley, I saw the importance of its antique weapons collections.
It is important to remember that, if the mischief that the Bill is intended to prevent is the misuse of weapons, any exemptions that allow weapons to be kept when they are not being fired, or are being fired in controlled circumstances on the historic ranges at Bisley, might be acceptable and certainly would not go against the aim of the Bill.
5.45 Pm
I understand from those involved in the historic arms resource centre that a large number of weapons are used in the National Rifle Association open competition—what is known as the Trafalgar meeting—in October. I am told that it is the de facto national championship. Of just under 1,900 event entries at the last Trafalgar meeting, more than 850 were for historic pistols. Only about 50 of those would be of .22 calibre. Therefore, a large inroad would be made into the use of historic weapons at that important meeting.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that he wanted this to be a short explanatory debate to determine whether the Government might be prepared to table suitable amendments at a later date. Therefore, in conclusion, I want to direct my hon. Friend the Minister's mind to the historic reconstructions undertaken by the English Civil War Society and the Sealed Knot, which are hugely important. I hope that that matter is being taken care of.

Miss Widdecombe: There was full discussion on muzzle loading yesterday, when I gave a clear


undertaking to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He asked me whether the Sealed Knot could take it that it had nothing to worry about and I gave him a one-word answer—yes. I am delighted to put that on the record again today.
However, the new clause goes well beyond that matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) for saying that he will not press it because, without wishing to be too disagreeable, I have to say that it is not acceptable in its current form.
The firearms which the new clause is designed to exempt are not very old and for the most part are little different technically from modern handguns. Therefore, as currently drafted, it would be a major loophole in the proposed controls. However, I want to give my hon. Friends some reassurance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already said that we are considering actively and sympathetically how we might exempt historic handguns from the provisions of the Bill.
Historic handguns manufactured before 1919 and, in some cases, before 1939, which are not fired, will be able to be kept at home by owners on a firearms certificate. If we can agree with the police and the Bisley authorities the details of their proposals for the firing of historic handguns, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on 12 November, that will allow most owners of such guns to be able to keep them legitimately on a firearms certificate.
The details of our proposals are still under consideration. However, I fully accept that there is an historic angle to collections. If it is possible to make exemptions without producing the sort of loophole that the new clause sadly produces, we shall table an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised a point of law when he referred to the 1992 regulations. He was right to say that there are a number of Acts, all of which are interrelated and need to be referred to regularly in order to understand the current proposals. The 1992 regulations simply enacted requirements of the European Community weapons directive, which did not require the Government to make any particular impositions. The collectors provision does not apply to weapons that are prohibited under section 5(1).

Mr. Dalyell: Who will do the actual administrative work on all the exemptions? It is a major logistics exercise—and logistics exercises are extremely costly. In addition, in many cases involving old collections, a certain amount of expertise is required. Few people are in a position to speak with authority. It is all very well for us, sitting on green Benches, to say that this, that and the other will be done, but who will do it? Who has the knowledge to do it? Those who have are rather rare people.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we already require the police to take decisions on the merits of individual cases. That will continue. Obviously, the guidance, provisions and details that will be introduced during the passage of the Bill will be based on the best expert advice that we can obtain. I

am sure that it will be thoroughly tested by those who are giving technical advice to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. With respect, I do not actually think that things will be quite as complex as he suggests once the definitions are made clear and transparent and the details brought forward. I would ask him to suspend judgment until that time. It is, of course, open to him at any time to ask what sort of advice any particular provision would entail and how it would be enacted.

Mr. O'Neill: Would the police be recompensed for the amount of work that might be entailed? One can envisage a constabulary having to have one or—perhaps—two resident experts and that the certification would involve a fair amount of administration. I get the impression at the moment that there is no suggestion of a charge being made for such a service. I fully accept the Minister's intentions in this area—she is trying to meet a legitimate concern—but please let us not have the chief constables coming to us to say that such a service will represent a disproportionate cost and that, therefore, other aspects of the police service will be put at a disadvantage, policemen will be taken off the beat, or whatever.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman hypothesises about resident experts and all the rest of it. He has been in the House long enough to know that Ministers are most unlikely to commit resources to hypotheses.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I would like to be quite clear about whether the hon. Lady is giving way.

Miss Widdecombe: I wish to facilitate the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

Mr. Dalyell: I just wonder how many people at Maidstone police station know much about the matter.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall ask people at Maidstone police station exactly how they deal with the things with which they already have to deal under the current law. I am sure that the response will be: "Efficiently, without great drama and effectively."

Sir Cranley Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her response to the amendment. I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that a number of people in Surrey know a lot about rifles, pistols and handguns generally, and there should be no difficulty in obtaining expert advice from them. They are well skilled, extremely courteous and efficient in the way in which they have dealt with affairs involving shooting at Bisley over a number of years.
I declare an interest as a member of the council of the National Rifle Association. I am glad to hear that the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are indeed to be carried through and that we can look forward to seeing the form in which the legislation will come before us. Although I did not have the advantage of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) of talking at length on the subject of historic arms when I was at Bisley on Sunday—it was pouring with rain and not an occasion for a lengthy


conversation in any case—I know that there is active interest in helping out with the question of the firing of historic weapons. Careful preparation is obviously needed to ensure that the physical security is adequate and that there is no hitch or glitch in bringing in the new system that my hon. Friend the Minister has promised that we shall see. I earnestly hope that she will press forward with her discussions with the Bisley experts and that the necessary steps will be taken in good time so that the due meeting can take place as scheduled.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that she recognises the significance of the potential loophole, although I must admit some interesting images came to mind of members of Her Majesty's constabulary understudying at the "Antiques Roadshow" in seeking to identify some of the weapons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has pointed out, there is the whole question of whether charges would have to be made to have accredited experts evaluate guns, as hon. Members have recognised that such people exist.
Part of the debate has echoed some of the discussion on amendment No. 4, which related to trophies of war. This debate has expanded the recognition that some older weapons can be used in a lethal manner. No one is suggesting that people, for purposes of antiquity and collection, are operating in conditions other than those of common sense and good reason, but it is defined that collecting is a good reason for holding a firearm. If large-calibre shot firearms were exempted—even if they were manufactured quite some time ago—they could create quite a major loophole.
When the matter is being considered at a later stage, I ask the Government to take into account the fact that not all those who could have access to such weapons would be the people who should have legitimate access. There is always the danger of those who do not have common sense and the good of society at heart getting hold of such weapons—not least because the issue of ammunition is significant. As I understand, it is possible for the ammunition of other weapons to be used in antique weapons. What is more, those who have expertise in firearms are perfectly capable of manufacturing ammunition at home. If that were not so, institutions such as Bisley would not exist. It is therefore possible to rearm such weapons and create ammunition for them.
I do not think that we should glide over too easily the question of the administrative burden that would be created. We are conscious of the fact that Her Majesty's constabulary has rather a lot on its plate at the moment, and the Bill will rightly put a greater onus on the police. It is very important, therefore, that we do not put undue pressure on the police with regard not only to administration but to the raising of their levels of expertise in analysing such weapons and assessing whether they are liable to covered by the proposed Act.
Although I welcome the Minister's recognition of the possibility and danger of a loophole being created by the new clause, I ask her to take into account more seriously the points that have been made by my hon. Friends. We look forward to the Government tabling a more

considered amendment at a later stage. At that point, I hope that we shall have a further opportunity for debate at quite some length.

Miss Widdecombe: I can assure the hon. Lady that, of course, we shall take cognisance of the need not to create a large loophole when we are considering the issue of historic weapons and what may or may not be classified under that heading. Indeed, it is for that reason that I have found the new clause too wide and insufficiently tightly drawn for me to accept.
Since the issue of administrative burdens and charges has been raised several times, perhaps it deserves rather closer consideration. First, we are talking about people who already have a firearms certificate. That is important to understand. Secondly, there is already a standard charge for a firearms certificate. As I understand, £56 is charged for the granting of a certificate and £46 for its renewal. Those charges are intended to cover police costs.

Mrs. Liddell: Could the Minister give us some advice? It was my understanding that no fee was charged for an old weapon. Can she confirm that there is no fee for a trophy firearm?

Miss Widdecombe: I may have to wait for my brain to catch up with me, but it does not have far to travel. I hope to be able to supply the necessary information to the hon. Lady before the debate is concluded. Meanwhile, that does not affect the stand that I have taken on the new clause.

Mr. Leigh: I wonder why it is morally acceptable—indeed, legal—to keep at home a lethal weapon simply because it was manufactured before a certain date, but immoral and against the law to keep a weapon at home because one wishes to indulge in a sport. I suspect that such a value judgment cannot be sustained.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: They are cherished.

Mr. Leigh: They are cherished or cosseted, but embarking on such a value judgment is dangerous for the House. One can usually tell a bad law by the number of exemptions attached to it.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: One or two matters have arisen that go rather wider than my new clause. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as so often, put his finger firmly on an important point about the expertise and knowledge of firearms officers. One of the complaints that the British Shooting Sports Council has had for many years is that the firearms certificate system is not being used properly. Not only, sadly, was that demonstrably proved at Dunblane, but the 54—I think—constabularies all administer their own system on their own computers, which do not talk to each other.
Although things have got much better in the past few years—I give full credit to the Association of Chief Police Officers and its committee that deals with such matters—we were keen to have a national firearms board, staffed by ex-armourers, ex-police firearms officers and real experts, who would be long-term appointments, understand the shooting fraternity, be experts in firearms, know the law inside out and maintain a national computer


network. If a firearm is found on a Friday night and the police wish to know whether it is a registered firearm, the chance of ascertaining that before midday on Monday is currently zilch.
6 pm
For some reason, which we have never discovered, there were those in the Home Office who decided that by commissioning certain studies they could come up with an astonishing cost for a national computer network. The figure of £10 million was mentioned, which I find astonishing bearing in mind the small numbers involved. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, our idea might be given a further airing, because the way that we keep the register is inefficient.
I do not suggest that civilians should be permitted to give firearms certificates, but the very expertise that a civilian board would have would allow the oddball to be noticed because the people on it would deal every day with ordinary shooters.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the detail of firearms. One issue that has been raised in discussions with the police is that of the registration of firearms and we may come on to that subject in Standing Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of having a national firearms list on computer, because I understand that that does not exist at the moment?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: It certainly does not exist. Each firearms certificate identifies the weapon concerned with a serial number. Unfortunately, some weapons do not have serial numbers. There is always some problem, so it has been suggested that each item should have a log book, as cars do. I have never personally been against that suggestion, but it is not the policy of the British Shooting Sports Council because it would add to the complexity and paperwork. It is reasonable to expect that a national register should be kept or, at least, that the individual registers should be nationally accessible. That is within the capacity of modern technology. If one can run the national lottery and sell tens of millions of tickets every Saturday, 1.5 million certificates could easily be controlled by modern technology.
I have no brief for the way in which that is done today and I do not believe that the Home Office seriously considered our proposals. The studies were done in a most biased manner and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), during the passage of the Bill, will learn a little more about the subject and, perhaps, seek to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister of State of the merits of our solution, which would reduce costs and—just as important—improve the expertise.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made all the right noises, if I may put it like that, about the principle behind my new clause. Exempt weapons are exempt and do not require a certificate. There is no charge for exempt weapons, but the owner has to prove that they are exempt. If they are deactivated, some proof must be provided that they have been properly deactivated. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was right to say that some clever people were undeactivating their weapons,

but now more stringent standards have been drawn up under the masters of the proof houses. Weapons that have been deactivated under those standards will not only never work but are almost valueless, so many people do not wish to do that to their weapons.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

EXEMPTION FOR DEALERS

'.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a registered firearms dealer to have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, or sell or transfer. a short firearm for the purpose of selling or transferring that firearm to a person who may, by the provisions of this Act, lawfully possess, purchase or acquire it.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I recognise that new clause 6 is slightly controversial. Its effect would be to give dealers a general exemption to enable them to acquire short firearms for sale or transfer to an exempted person. They would draw their authority for that from the fact that the person with whom they were dealing was an exempted person under the legislation in respect of the gun in question. Since the market in exemptions will be so small, few dealers will apply for a section 5 licence, with all the difficulties that that will entail and the rigid parameters that will have to be followed for the occasional and probably not very profitable deal. Large geographical areas will therefore have no such service available.
The House will recognise that the Bill will ban mail order, so guns will have to be transferred from hand to hand. The new clause covers a small matter, but the role of licensed firearms dealers could be much more helpful than the Government have recognised. Dealers now have to have secure premises, with the latest alarms connected directly to local police stations. That is right, and they go to much trouble to establish those premises. They are experienced and trustworthy people. I would not say that it never happens, but I can remember only one occasion—apart from the obvious crooks—on which a firearms dealer has got into any trouble. If those people and their facilities are used, not only will expense be saved, but they will be able to replace some of the trade that they will lose.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the subject. Can he tell the rest of us roughly how many licensed firearms dealers there are in Britain?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is very complimentary, but even after all these years I do not claim an encyclopedic knowledge. I believe that there are just over 3,000 registered firearms dealers in the United Kingdom.
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be suspicious of new clause 6—because the whole tone of the Bill is to suppress, eliminate and put out of business all handguns over .22—but I wish to try her on it. Although I do not intend to press it at this stage, I should be grateful for her full explanation.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will not press the new clause as it would


be impossible for us to accept it. For a moment, so as to stay strictly in order under the new clause and so that I can give the Committee the information that I promised under the previous new clause, let us imagine that the dealer in question is trading in old weapons and he is asked whether there is a charge for a firearms certificate. The answer is that the only free certificates issued are issued for trophies of war—they are not issued for collectors' items or other historic weapons. I thank you, Dame Janet, for letting me get away with that.
I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that we consider that the new clause would create a huge loophole in the general requirement for dealers to have the Home Secretary's authority to deal in prohibited weapons. We are not prepared to make concessions for dealers who deal in prohibited handguns. If dealers wish to sell prohibited weapons of any sort—including handguns which will be prohibited once the Bill becomes law—they must apply for the Home Secretary's authority to do so under section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that this may cause inconvenience for people who will have to find a dealer with section 5 authority, but we are not aware that the current requirements cause problems for vets in respect of tranquillising weapons, for example. There are no exemptions to the requirement of section 5(1), nor do I propose to make any. Therefore, I have to say to my hon. Friend rather more firmly than previously that we cannot accept the new clause.

Mrs. Liddell: The Minister has the support of the Opposition in the stance that she has taken. The new clause would create a substantial loophole and would cause considerable difficulty by giving a blanket exemption to dealers. Those who will be able legitimately to hold higher-calibre weapons will be very small in number and there will be no real need for a wide network of dealers, which could only leave an opportunity for those with dishonourable purposes to gain access to premises where they knew such firearms could be held. I commend the Minister for the common sense of her position.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About three-quarters of an hour ago, anticipating that the House of Commons was likely to rise on a Tuesday at an unprecedented early hour, I inquired about the possibility of a second Adjournment debate on the position of Brigadier Thompson's reconnaissance team, which is coming back from Zaire. The information that I received from the Table Office was that an all circumstances post-Jopling there is no possibility of a second Adjournment debate even when it is anticipated at a very early stage that the sitting could collapse.
The Adjournment debate of the hon. Gentleman from mid-Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), could not possibly be extended from hospitals in mid-Wales to other matters. Given the pressure on parliamentary time, it is a crying

shame and totally unsatisfactory that we should be about to begin the Adjournment debate at 12 minutes past 6. This is prime time, and many hon. Members have subjects on which they wish to raise questions—the commitment of the British Army in Zaire is just one. Can this matter be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee because what it has done is, in effect, deeply unsatisfactory?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet-Fookes): The hon. Gentleman is correct in his understanding of the present practice. I would suggest that if he is unhappy he should go directly to the Procedure Committee to raise the issue. However, I must point out that, technically, we have not quite reached the Adjournment.

Bill reported, with amendments, pursuant to Order [18 November].

Bill, as amended, ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, Standing Committee E shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have said that the current situation regarding a second Adjournment debate is "the present practice". Frankly, a lot of my colleagues did not know that. Is it "practice", which can be defied, or a resolution of the House which cannot?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that the present situation is a result of the agreement following the Jopling reforms and that these are the orders under which we now work. I said "the present practice" because one cannot anticipate what changes might be made in the future.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, although my hon. Friend from Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), could go on for some time with his Adjournment debate. I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I remember the Jopling reforms, but I do not recall that such an eventuality as this was considered. Many people would argue that there should perhaps be a reserve list of Adjournment debates for just such an eventuality. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will use your good offices to make that view clear, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow—as he so very often does—has put his finger on an important point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can add to what I have said, but it is open to any hon. Member to make such recommendations as he feels suitable to the Procedure Committee, which exists for the purpose.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to put you on the spot, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could a statement be made at some point on precisely where the orders have been agreed that there should not be a second Adjournment debate? The Clerk may have some knowledge of this.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will ensure that a member of the Clerk's Department provides chapter and verse for the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day — Ceredigion and Mid-Wales Hospital Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mrs. Lait.]

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I have been accorded a status this evening to which I would not dare aspire. I have been described as the hon. Member for mid-Wales, and even as the hon. Member for Wales. There may be a sense in which my party represents Wales, but I claim only to be the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. However, what I have to say tonight applies and is relevant to a large part of mid-Wales.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), for being here tonight to respond to this important debate, and for the courteous hearing that he has given me in the past on this subject. I am also grateful to him for the letter that I received today in response to my most recent one to him—although it did not give me much comfort, except in one detail.
The Under-Secretary will know that I have been expressing concern about the future of the hospital service in my constituency since June 1995, in correspondence and in questions in the Chamber. He will also know that, all along, I have avoided alarmism in this discussion.
Those who attended the well-attended public meeting that I convened in Aberystwyth on 27 September—which led to the formation of the Ceredigion hospital services working group—will confirm that it would have been perfectly possible to create a mood of alarm, but that I avoided doing so. However, I must say that I am becoming alarmed at the direction of events and the likely consequences of the funding crisis—that is no overstatement—that is now affecting the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales hospital trust.
Before I come to discuss the crisis, can I first emphasise the excellence of the service provided by the trust? I wish to emphasise the district general hospital at Bronglais, Aberystwyth, and the three community hospitals at Aberaeron, Cardigan and Tregaron.
Bronglais provides a wide range of services, led by its own consultants, to a very high standard—of that there can be no doubt. The quality of service is matched by its efficiency, as its position in the NHS Wales performance tables on waiting times clearly shows. It has met its patients charter requirements successfully, and won the Healthy Hospitals competition in 1995. It is now preparing for King's Fund accreditation and the Investors in People award in 1996–97, and it has every confidence of success. It has set itself an impressive list of targets for the next financial year.
It is worth asking what lies behind that success. The trust's new chairperson, Eleri Ebenezer, who came to the job at the beginning of this financial year, identifies a number of factors in her foreword to last year's annual report. She says:
Since my arrival in April 1996. I have been extremely impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff I have met so far.
Such things are often said, and they sound like clichés, but I think that there is truth in what is said about the hospital and the trust.
The foreword continues:
the affection, support and esteem of the community for the Trust is excellent, with people having great pride in their local hospitals and health services … The trust also appreciates the strong support provided by the Community Health Council, the County Council, the University and the voluntary organisations in Ceredigion and Mid Wales.
The three community hospitals in turn are cherished by the localities they serve, by virtue of the same dedication and quality of care. However, the service, in terms of both quality and, crucially, range, is in danger.
Until a week or so ago, the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust, alone among the trusts in the Dyfed Powys health authority, had failed to agree a contract with it, arguing that the authority's offer was £400,000 short of what was needed. Knowing that, if conciliation found in the trust's favour, the authority would go to pendulum arbitration, which could result—that being the nature of such arbitration—in its getting nothing, the trust accepted an improvement of only £150,000 on the offer.
The additional sum of £150,000 that was agreed 10 days ago is in the form of a loan, and £320,000 of this year's health authority contract is what is known as brokerage—a loan that must be repaid. The implications of the settlement will be grave.
The health authority faces serious difficulties. It is responsible for, among other places, the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who is here today; I am sure that he is interested in the matter.
For various reasons, the health authority will have to find a total spending reduction of between £9 million and £10 million by the end of the decade; that is partly because Powys health authority, the predecessor authority, accumulated a deficit of, I believe, £2 million up to the end of last year. There is some feeling in the Dyfed part of the new authority that it should not have to carry the consequences of that deficit, but I do not want to be divisive and pursue that matter tonight.
Because of the need to pull back £9 million-plus, there will be year-on-year cuts until the end of the century, with little if any scope for efficiency savings to be made without reducing service quality. What I said about the efficiency level of Bronglais is relevant to that, and I emphasise that Bronglais has among the lowest management costs in Wales. It is small wonder that the health authority says:
the situation could lead to Trusts failing and services being put in jeopardy.
Within that dismal picture, Bronglais district general hospital—I want that term to mean what it says—as a small hospital, serving a sparsely populated rural area, has its own specific problems, operating as it must in the competitive environment of the national health service market. Specifically, it is required to service any capital development to the extent of 6 per cent. and to provide a 6 per cent. return not only on new capital development but on asset value.
Unless there is a recognition of those specific problems—there should and can be such a recognition—and unless provision is made, as it must be, to cope with them, Bronglais will find it increasingly difficult to maintain a sufficient capital programme to replace equipment and keep abreast of new developments in technology and other facilities. The effect on staff


recruitment and the marketability—we have to use that terminology—of the hospital's services could be to set up a spiral of decline. I have described to the Minister in the past how that could occur.
The strategy document of Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust, "Ceredigion 2000", contains a SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats—analysis. Among the threats, it identifies the fact that fundholders now have far greater discretion in purchasing decisions and that they—and especially those at the outer periphery of the area—might be tempted to purchase services elsewhere.
On capital development, lest anyone should mention the private finance initiative, let me express my total scepticism as to its relevance to the health service in general and to a small hospital in rural Wales in particular.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the way in which the PFI has been used to hold back for months, if not years, the work that should be taking place on the new community hospital in the neighbouring area of north Meirionnydd and eastern Dwyfor? That is a warning to anybody who goes down that road.

Mr. Dafis: I am aware that the attempt to find a PFI solution involves delay. The new development at Bronglais is extremely welcome, and can go ahead only because it is revenue neutral. It is the last capital development to get under the fence before PFI came in, and I doubt whether it would be proceeding if PFI had been in place earlier.
In attempting to protect the district general hospital at Bronglais, the trust will inevitably be tempted—this is the crunch for the moment—to close community hospitals, despite its intention, stated in February 1994,
to strengthen the role of community hospitals
as part of its community services strategy. If it closed a community hospital, it would immediately save the 6 per cent. charge that it has to make on the asset value of that hospital.
I remind the House of the various statements, including one by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), that community hospitals are valued and are to be retained, and that their closure should not be on the agenda. On that subject, the health authority said in one of its documents:
there has to be rationalisation"—
a euphemism for closure, of course—
of some peripheral hospitals if we are to manage within the current base budget.
Any such move would provoke a fierce and entirely justified public response. The Cardis, together with the people of north Pembrokeshire, who use the hospital at Cardigan, would rise in revolt, and that would be a fearsome spectacle.
The health authority is responding to the crisis by initiating a strategic review of its services. There is nothing wrong with that, and certainly there is nothing wrong with considering ways of increasing co-operation between trusts and hospitals. I am all in favour of that at the expense of the competition principle that underpins so much of Government policy. However, we must resist any cost-cutting exercise that would reduce the range of specialist services provided by Bronglais's specialists.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this important

debate, and acknowledge the hard work he has done to protect the services in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. On Bronglais hospital, many of my constituents in the south of Meirionnydd have to travel to Aberystwyth for essential health services. Is he aware of the great difficulties they would face if they had to travel to places such as Carmarthen? The distances involved are unreasonable. Bronglais serves south Meirionnydd as much as Ceredigion and Pembroke. I hope that the Minister will respond usefully and reasonably.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I am talking not only of the welfare of Ceredigion but of a necessary and highly valued service to many people in Machynlleth and parts of Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire. It is essential for that large area that the hospital should be kept as it is.
Trust chairman Eleri Ebenezer, speaking of the great pride in their hospital of people in the trust area, said:
They particularly appreciate that they do not have to travel over fifty miles to the nearest of our neighbouring Trusts' General Hospitals for treatment and care.
The nearest general hospital is in Carmarthen, and there is also ysbyty Gwynedd and, to the east, Shrewsbury. It would be unacceptable and unreasonable for people to have to travel to those. She continues:
As a small trust, the strategic importance of our location cannot be denied.
Aberystwyth, in its strategic location, serves a wide area of mid-Wales. That is the bottom line. The position of Bronglais as a district general hospital delivering at least its present range of consultant-led services with its own consultants must be protected. Bearing it in mind that it serves the biggest part of mid-Wales, anything else is unthinkable. That should be non-negotiable.
It is worrying that the health authority suggests that the trend towards increasing specialisation, and the ever more rigorous requirements of the royal colleges in respect of the number of treatments that need to be undertaken and on the number of consultants who have to work together, must imply increasing centralisation of services. I am unhappy about such talk. That assumption must be challenged. Centralisation is not the way forward.
In dealing with Bronglais, the royal colleges have shown a sensible and accommodating flexibility in the numbers game—which I dare say makes some sense in an urban setting—and they must continue to do so. It would not be acceptable to apply urban norms to vastly different rural settings.
I remind the Minister and others that the Government's recent White Paper, "A Service with Ambitions", gave as one of the five elements of quality
the accessibility of the service, in terms of distance, time, physical access, language and understanding".
Almost all those factors, and especially language and understanding, apply importantly to the position of Bronglais. It should not be part of the agenda of a service with ambitions to centralise away specialisms from places such as Aberystwyth in the way it has.
Cancer care at Bronglais is a case in point. A highly regarded and valued service is provided, working in association with Singleton hospital at Swansea and the Royal Marsden hospital. That service is seeking designation as a unit as one of its targets for next year. It


should achieve that. It would be unacceptable for the people of mid-Wales to have to receive that care at a distant hospital.
There is talk of restructuring the trusts in the health authority. Of course, there can be no question of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust being swallowed by another trust. Any restructuring should bear in mind the need and potential for strengthening the trust. There may be an opportunity for that, with the proposals for the Derwen mental health trust. Proposals were put out for consultation last week, and they must be considered in the context of the need to strengthen the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust.
All that I have said must mean, setting aside other considerations, that the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust needs more money. It is as simple as that. That issue cannot be ducked for next financial year; I presume that it is too late for this financial year. The problem must be addressed in the context of the needs of Dyfed Powys health authority, which serves a vast area in Welsh terms. It serves 470,000 people and must, of necessity, maintain four district general hospitals even though in simple population terms two would serve. The nature of the area demands that; it is acknowledged that four are needed.
It is unreasonable for the health authority to have to work with a diminishing budget for the next four years. How can it possibly manage in such circumstances? The formula is, of course, being reconsidered. I do not want to argue that one health authority should take money away from others, but Dyfed Powys health authority needs more money. The special conditions and circumstances that operate there must be acknowledged in the funding provided, and especially in respect of that for the trust serving Ceredigion and mid-Wales.
The decisions that will be taken over the next few weeks, first in the Budget and then in the Welsh Office financial settlement, are highly relevant. For that reason, I beg the Secretary of State for Wales, with all due courtesy, to pay careful and urgent attention to my remarks. The matter is crucial. I assume that the health authority is making, and has made, strenuous representations to the Welsh Office about the situation. I hope that it will not simply agree to implement the cuts. Its function should in part be to demand and argue for the additional funding that it certainly needs.
We are told that the NHS is everywhere under strain, but I speak for my patch and for a large part of rural Wales. Unless this crisis is tackled—and I do not exaggerate—the implications for this strategically vital institution and the people it serves will be very serious.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I well know his concern for the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust and for Bronglais hospital in particular. In turn, as he acknowledged, Bronglais hospital achieves excellence and if there were to be a deterioration in that, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), some of whose constituents are served by the same hospital and trust, would be even quicker to my door than the hon. Gentleman has been.
I must also thank the hon. Gentleman for not pursuing the opportunity to raise the subject last Friday, as that would have precluded me from representing the United Kingdom at an important European conference in Ireland on employment and regional development. I am grateful to him for that. It was not the first time that Plaid Cymru has kindly facilitated the representation of Wales abroad, and that is always appreciated.
Although the funding of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust is the hon. Gentleman's prime concern, before I focus on the trust and Bronglais hospital, it may be desirable for me to outline to the House the present arrangements for hospital income and the role that the Welsh Office has in the matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales stated earlier this month at the Welsh Association of Health Authorities and Trusts conference, the NHS budget in Wales increased last year from £2.2 billion to £2.3 billion. Since 1979, the average annual increase in the NHS budget has been well above inflation. Furthermore, it is on record that the NHS will receive an increase over and above the level of inflation every year for the next five years. My right hon. Friend has agreed to match that in Wales. The health service in Wales is and will continue to be a priority.
The overall thrust of my right hon. Friend's message, however, is that there will be no relief from improving efficiency, management, communication with the public and standards. It cannot be accepted that a health service spending £2.3 billion a year cannot find more savings in addition to those already achieved.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the large figures that he bandies around are fanciful and have no connection with reality. My right hon. Friend will be announcing the details of his Welsh spending plans next month.
NHS trusts, by their very nature, control their own affairs, and receive no direct revenue funding from the Welsh Office. They receive by far the greatest share of their total income from contracts with health authorities and general practitioners for the provision of health care. A small proportion of income derives from non-patient-related activities, such as the funding of medical training and income generation schemes.
In the case of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, 94 per cent. of its income derives from patient activity, with the remaining 6 per cent. coming from other sources. Dyfed Powys health authority provides the largest element of contract income, although the success of the fundholding scheme means that an increasing proportion of patient activity is commissioned directly from general practitioners. That is a welcome development, and there are already well-documented benefits for patients throughout Wales.
Capital expenditure by an NHS trust—to expand, replace or develop some of its capital assets—can be funded from four main sources. First, a NHS trust can fund from its own depreciation reserves. Those reserves occur as an element of depreciation is included in contract prices for patient activity and is utilised to offset the cost of replacement assets. Secondly, when revenue surpluses are generated, there is the flexibility to use those surpluses to finance capital expenditure.
The Welsh Office provides a third source, via long-term loans to finance authorised capital expenditure which cannot be met by the means already described. That would involve the inclusion of interest costs of the loans in prices for patient activity.
Finally, capital expenditure can be generated via the private finance initiative, which is by far the most exciting and innovative method of capital provision. Increasingly, hospitals are making use of the private finance initiative as a means of acquiring improved capabilities without the need for capital expenditure. The private finance initiative also offers the opportunity for more innovative means of health care provision, with commensurate increases in efficiency and effectiveness.
I am sure that the House will agree that the private finance initiative represents a major new opportunity for the NHS in Wales to explore and exploit the most modern and effective methods of health care provision. Frankly, I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, and I completely refute the assertion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
In no way does the PFI represent a means of engineering delay. It has quite the opposite effect, for it expands the ability to undertake large capital projects and means that more such projects will proceed earlier than they would have done by traditional and conventional methods. Indeed, the chairman of Powys Healthcare NHS trust told me that prospective partners had shown more interest in the private finance initiative projects at Newtown Bronllys than in most other PFI candidates to date, so the claims that PFI has no relevance or interest in rural areas are clearly misplaced.
Let me turn to what is expected from a hospital in terms of its financial performance. Naturally, it should balance its books year on year. What is required, in effect, is that the hospital's revenue expenditure should be contained within the income that it can expect to receive, essentially from its health authorities and GP 'fundholders and from other means. The target is well understood, and all but a handful of hospitals in Wales have achieved that break-even position.
I am sure that it has not escaped Members' notice that the financial performance of the NHS in Wales has lately been the subject of media scrutiny that is all too often inaccurate and misleading. Particularly, I refer to the flawed report produced by the University of Wales college, Newport, on behalf of the BBC. It contains a large number of inaccuracies, and has caused great concern among patients and staff at hospitals in Wales, that are unfairly reported as being in deficit at the end of the last financial year.
Contrary to the report, overall hospital financial performance in Wales in 1995–96 was represented by a surplus of £2.61 million. The report wrongly incorporates technical accounting adjustments, which have no detrimental effect on the trusts' finances, into the overall picture. That error could have been corrected easily if those involved had taken the trouble to check the figures with Welsh Office or hospital officials or read the annual reports of the hospitals that were criticised in such a sensational and unfair way. The media could easily have given the true picture had they the will to do so.
Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust has broadly satisfied its requirement to break even over the past three financial years. It is anticipated that this year's financial

performance will be much the same. I recognise that this is a difficult year for Bronglais hospital, and the effort that is being made is a reflection of the continuing commitment and hard work of all the staff involved.
Furthermore, I am pleased to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said—that the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust performs above the Welsh average for most of the patients charter targets. The number of patients treated in 1995–96 continues to increase, with the largest increase of 26 per cent. being in day cases. That is in line with Welsh Office targets. Staff at the trust are to be commended for the high-quality care that they provide for the people of mid-Wales.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about the funding of the hospital together with its long-term viability. As I said, I met him last month to discuss those very issues. It was a very informative and productive meeting, during which we discussed various points of concern regarding the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, Bronglais hospital and the hon. Member's request for additional funding to the health authority to be earmarked for the hospital.
On the question of additional funding to Dyfed Powys health authority specifically for Bronglais hospital, I can only reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be appropriate, because, as I have stated on a number of occasions, it is for the health authority to judge where the resources allocated to it for the health care needs of the local population should be spent.
Additional funding could be provided only at the expense of other parts of Wales. I am sure the House will recognise that that would compromise our commitment to equity of health care provision across Wales.
I do, however, acknowledge that Dyfed Powys health authority is facing a challenging period in terms of its finances, and in order to help the authority I have agreed loans totalling £2.5 million. That sum is made up of a previous loan of £800,000 from 1995–96 that was made to the former Powys health authority, together with a further £.7 million being provided this year.
I have also agreed that the repayment of those loans should be deferred to the year 1999–2000. That will allow the health authority to establish firmly a comprehensive strategy for commissioning health care before repaying the loans. In agreeing those arrangements, I have requested regular monitoring reports from the Dyfed Powys health authority.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, Dyfed Powys health authority has undertaken a review, with the assistance of all the NHS trusts in the health authority's geographical area, and I readily commend that initiative. It provides an opportunity to identify more efficient use of resources and it is expected that a list of recommendations will be submitted to the Welsh Office some time in December.

Mr. Dafis: The Minister tells us that it is for the health authority to allocate resources, and I understand that. Surely, however, the Welsh Office has a view on the specific need for the district general hospital at Bronglais to retain the range of services that it currently provides through its own specialists. In addition, surely the Welsh Office has a view—as I am sure the Government do—on the position of community hospitals. Would not the Minister regard it as unacceptable if the trust had to


choose between those two priorities—the retention of community hospitals or the protection of the range of services available at Bronglais?

Mr. Jones: First and foremost, I say to the hon. Gentleman—as I have told him before—that we remain and will continue to remain committed to the provision of acute health care at Bronglais hospital. It is not, however, possible for me or anyone else in my position to attempt to second-guess all the decisions in the decision-making process that should occur within the health service in Wales.
There has to be a proper place for health authorities, which have now been reformed and rationalised, with great economies achieved by cutting the number of bureaucrats in the Welsh health authorities. It is their responsibility to identify the health needs of the communities in their local areas. They in turn make arrangements with NHS trusts up and down Wales to provide all that health care.
I am confident that that is the right level on which decisions should be made, are made, and will continue to be made. Dare I describe it to the hon. Gentleman as a process of real devolution, which we have brought about in the NHS in Wales and in many other fields of activity in Wales? Real devolution is a guiding principle of this Government—we believe in it, and we practise it.
Together with the health authority and Bronglais hospital, the Government will maintain their commitment to providing modern hospital health care for the people of Ceredigion. I can continue by saying to the hon. Gentleman that one obvious example of that commitment is the approval and funding of the reprovision of facilities for the elderly and mentally ill from North Road hospital, which is an inadequate and antiquated location, to a purpose-built facility at Bronglais hospital. The new scheme will include in-patient and day hospital facilities, together with associated X-ray and urodynamic services. That scheme is progressing as planned, at a projected cost of some £8.4 million—a significant commitment indeed.
In addition, Bronglais hospital has been allocated a further £900,000 capital expenditure in 1996–97 for the provision of improved pathology services and other equipment needs. The trust's commitment to the latest technology is demonstrated through its key involvement in the Telemedicine project, which received widespread publicity at national level. The trust also became the first in Wales and the second in the United Kingdom to go live on the Internet in 1995.
It is appropriate to remember at this point that this month we witnessed the 50th anniversary of Parliament passing the legislation to set up the national health service. It is a tribute to the many thousands of doctors, nurses

and staff who have healed the sick and cared for so many of our fellow citizens over the years that our health service is regarded with such affection today.
When the legislation passed into law, my party gave the national health service its full support, and that support has continued ever since—indeed, for 34 of the 48 years of the life of the NHS since 1948, it has been Conservative Governments who have raised the taxes and given the money to keep the NHS running as a universal, national service that is freely available to all.
Spending on the national health service in Wales has increased by nearly 85 per cent. since the winter of 1979, when the Labour party was last in power. We have increased the resources available to the NHS by record amounts. There are more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists than in 1979. We are proud of the expanded and improved NHS that we enjoy today. This Government have presided over the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the health service. In Wales, we spend more on the health service for every man, woman and child than is spent in England, particularly for areas with more marked health needs.
Our improvements have allowed us to continue to expand the NHS in Wales. New hospitals are coming for St. David's and the Royal infirmary in Cardiff, Baglan, Bronllys, Newtown and Ynys y Plwm near Llantrisant, and there will be a new cancer centre in north Wales.
On its 50th birthday, we can look back with pride at a health service that works. It works because it has adapted, while remaining true to its founding principles. It works because it has a Conservative Government who are committed to real increases in health spending.
This Government have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the development of a health care system in Wales that not only meets the needs of today but is designed to take the service well into the next millennium. That can be truly effective only if all the component parts of the NHS in Wales work together with a strategic view of the way ahead.
It cannot be denied that health care provision in Ceredigion and mid-Wales faces particular pressures, but I have every confidence that Dyfed Powys health authority and local GPs will want to ensure that their local hospital is used for the best and fullest benefit of the population in that rural area. That is exactly in line with the extract from the trust chairman's report describing the way in which the community regards both Bronglais hospital and the trust, which the hon. Gentleman quoted with great pride. Working together, they will see the way forward as one of co-ordination and co-operation for fulfilling the accepted objective of always striving to provide the people of Ceredigion with the best possible quality of health care.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock.